Armageddon is a term derived from a mountain that is mentioned as part of a final conflict where God ultimately inflicts punishment on an invading Army. Invasion here from the perspective of ... we assume ... the Bible, ... hence ... into Israel.
Take out a sheet of paper and draw a huge circle. Now draw a small circle, tiny, in the middle of it. Recognize it? So, why are the people that inhabit the huge circle so much bent on being in that tiny circle? This is exactly that kind of situation that stinks to heavens and above. More so because the pro/contra Muslim/Islam stances are so polarized and not at all Enlightened.
These conflicts are however enough to provide context for an invasion. And as it seems (*caugh*sweden*caugh*) ... context is all that matters - whether people agree or even know enough to agree with anything or not.
But ... do we have to take this literally? A literal invasion into Israel? Or are we to 'project' - taking those old terms and reshaping them as fit for our modern age. Israel is there obviously more of a Symbolical thing - and that is supported by the Bible. I mean - the story of Armageddon would draw an image of the world uniting against Israel. In the Revelation however what we read is more like ... all the allies of Babylon turning against it.
But ... considering how difficult the contemporary "mass media landscape" looks ... its not out of the picture to assume some simple, ignorant, moronic approach of arrogant "dewing it".
I have to say something. @ the Antichrist. But I'll do so indirectly. I don't have an issue with him per se. I mean ... whether I identify as Gandalf or Zauron - either way there is the opponent whom the Antichrist seems to identify with; And as he is doing so I get the blame for it. Like I'm the one attacking him. What I have an issue with are the things he's doing - if he's doing those things, or part of those things, that I have an issue with.