Marvin,
I don't see anything upsetting about this.
You have to put it into context.
They are describing an emergency situation. And they have defined the specific situation in the article saying "At that time..."
What time? If you read the article they are talking about their long anticipated "great tribulation" which begins with some kind of peace proclamation that is different from the so-called previous proclamations.
The "disgusting thing standing where it shouldn't" has also been fairly ambiguous but they now have stated that it will be an all out attack on false religions which they think is Babylon the Great.
By these requirements they are saying that the Peace Proclamation will be identified by the the attack on Religion that quickly follows it. A peace proclamation that isn't followed by an attack on false religion would just be the run-of-the-mill cries for peace that are too familiar.
These are pretty big speed bumps before they invoke the "listen to us or you'll die" red code alert.
And face it. If there were an actual Peace Proclamation followed by an attack on false relgion by the United Nations you too might be inclined to listen to their direction although begrudgingly.
Don't worry though. This would be the first time they ever got anything right.