Catholic opinions towards Putin and his recent actions.

[oldcatholicguy]

Putin is a devout Christian. He made several urges to Russians, to get religion back in their lives. With his help, Christianity there is growing. Putin’s party also proposed a law introducing prison for offences against religious symbols. I also believe the famous “anti-gay” laws if we can call them that, were accepted based on religion.

Most people here live in USA or the West for that matter, i live in the West too. So i understand there is a lot of anti-Putin propaganda, especially in the USA. I don’t know Putin but based on his actions, he seems like a good strong leader that any country needs. But probably we will see his true nature, whether he is a moral man or not, in the future.

Christianity is growing in Russia because of the Russian people, not because of the actions of one man or political party.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

Putin is a bad man. Period. I’m constantly confounded by people (here, there, everywhere) who are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Putin = Bad

This is getting tiresome. Whatever he has done that gives the appearance of favoring “Christian” teaching is totally irrelevant. I wouldn’t care if he were somehow made a patriarch of the Orthodox church. He’s a bad man!

**Just because the so-called “liberal mainstream media” says he’s a bad man doesn’t mean that he’s a good man! ** I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that Fox News *also *thinks he’s a bad man.

Ei, ei, ei…

On what basis are you making this judgement? He is trying to lead Russia… RUSSIA where there are states with large numbers of terrorists, there are ultra right factions in neighbouring countries who want to oust governments and form alliances with external parties. I’d also suggest to you that he also wants to ensure that he creates moral order by not pandering to the global amoral liberal agenda. I’m not saying he is good but to say he’s bad is ill informed. If the US or the UK had all the internal threats that he has to contend with, they would both be governed in a different way.
I also think he’s entitled to get involved in the Ukraine and it’s nobody else’s business. So, what if the Mexican government behaved like the Ukrainian interim government has done; ousting a democratic one and then he started sticking his snout into US affairs? Do you think Obama would tell him to do one? I think so and with justification.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

If you want to understand Putin, you must understand Aleksandr Dugin. He is the master mind behind Putin as Saul Alinsky is the mastermind behind Obama.

Dugin is trying to form a new movement with everything that characterized Russia during the past century. Totalitarianism, strong military, moralism and the feel of the “Mother Russia” used by Stalin during the WW2.
As a whole, this movement is just an refurbish of the Soviet Union but with a new face.
This movement is not only Russian, but many allies of the Soviet Union are now together again with this movement.

They call it “Eurasian Movement”
youtube.com/watch?v=Qu1Fb_RfuMk

There are 3 groups that is looking for control of the world… The first is the one I just described. You could clearly see Russia and her friends like China acting together against the Islamic group during the so called “Arab Spring” and the Syrian Civil War.

I think that the Islamic group is self-evident and everybody here knows how they work.

The last group is the Bildenberg group. This group does not have any military or nation, but it has the media, schools, the White House and the UN. This group is actively engaged in the destruction of everything that holds the western civilization together. One example of this group’s acting is the creation of the “universal church”. You can know by reading the book “Poder Global y Religión universal” by Monsenhor Juan Claudio Sanahuja.

These 3 groups may fight or make deals with each other.

Here is a small least of books that may help you to get a clear image of what is going on:

• Foundations: Their Power and Influence by Rene A. Wormser
About the Rockfeller actions on 40’s and 50’s.

• Deliberate Dumbing Down of America by Charlotte Thomson
Title says it all

• Thieves’ World: The Threat of the New Global Network of Organized Crime by Claire Sterling by Claire Sterling
Shows most of the local Russian mafias where already unified under a bigger Mafia, which is the KGB.

• Proofs of a Conspiracy Against All the Religions and Governments of Europe Carried on in the Secret Meetings of Freemasons, Illuminati and Reading Societies
Shows that inside the Freemansons there are groups with the objective to make the Freemasonry a weapon against the Western Civilization

• In the Shadows of the Koran by Sayyid Qutb
The author is a thinker behind the Islamic brotherhood. He explicitly says that the Islamic has the duty to try to take down a non-Islamic government in his country

• The fraudulent gospel: Politics and the World Council of Churches by Bernard Smith
Explains how the World Council is a organization with anti-civilization intents.

I could list way more books, but this is enough to get you on the tracks. If you want to know more, here is the full list with books about all sorts of things:
spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?hl=en&hl=en&key=0AjkWwKgSYO9mdHJTaU8tWk5VdW41WjZWYXVPRmtXVFE&output=html

As you can see, the list is in Portuguese, but you can use Google Translate if you want to.

That’s paranoid garbage mate and it’s the type of nonsense that causes problems when people believe it. Tracks to where exactly?

1. Russia and China - allies? C’mon
2. This unified terror network that exists throughout nations. Aye that’s evident alright It’s prevalent and they have agencies everywhere.
3. They’re not trying to destroy Western civilisation intentionally. That’s done from their stupidity. They think that allowing abortion on demand and encouraging amorality will make people “happy”.

All 3 make deals with each other…like the start of “The Naked Gun” in a Middle Eastern palace???

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Putin is a devout Christian. He made several urges to Russians, to get religion back in their lives. With his help, Christianity there is growing. Putin’s party also proposed a law introducing prison for offences against religious symbols. I also believe the famous “anti-gay” laws if we can call them that, were accepted based on religion.

Most people here live in USA or the West for that matter, i live in the West too. So i understand there is a lot of anti-Putin propaganda, especially in the USA. I don’t know Putin but based on his actions, he seems like a good strong leader that any country needs. But probably we will see his true nature, whether he is a moral man or not, in the future.

Putin is trying to use the Russian Orthodox Church like the Tsars of old, to ensure the obedience of the masses.

 

[on_the_hill]

On what basis are you making this judgement?

His record. And no, I’m not going to provide citations.

He is trying to lead Russia…

Yes, back to the good ol’ days of the USSR, but this time run by corrupt oligarchs instead of corrupt party officials.

If the US or the UK had all the internal threats that he has to contend with, they would both be governed in a different way.

The reason we don’t have the internal threats is *because *of the way we are governed. When an internal threat arises, we deal within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution. I can’t speak for the UK, obviously.

So, what if the Mexican government behaved like the Ukrainian interim government has done; ousting a democratic one and then he started sticking his snout into US affairs? Do you think Obama would tell him to do one? I think so and with justification.

Not sure I understand your question. Are you asking what would happen if the Mexican govt were ousted by a popular uprising and a new govt took its place, and would Obama get involved? Yes, the U.S. federal government would get involved to some extent. It would monitor, attempt to bring peace and consensus through mediation and diplomacy. If necessary it would evacuate U.S. citizens, as it has done in other dangerous places around the world. Would the U.S. armed forces cross the Mexican border and occupy Mexican cities? No. Never.

 

[on_the_hill]

The last group is the Bildenberg group.

Wrong. It’s the Trilateral Commission working in collaboration with the Illuminati.

 

[on_the_hill]

Most people here live in USA or the West for that matter, i live in the West too. So i understand there is a lot of anti-Putin propaganda, especially in the USA. I don’t know Putin but based on his actions, he seems like a good strong leader that any country needs. But probably we will see his true nature, whether he is a moral man or not, in the future.

Just curious: would you say that there is a general feeling amongst Slovenes about Putin?

My wife has distant relatives in Slovenia; they visited the U.S. last summer and we spent some time with them.

 

[Timi_Celcer]

Just curious: would you say that there is a general feeling amongst Slovenes about Putin?

My wife has distant relatives in Slovenia; they visited the U.S. last summer and we spent some time with them.

I read some comments about Putin in Slovenia, and most are positive, but i don’t believe our government, which is in the EU like him. After all, both Russians and Slovenes are Slavs so there is some sympathy between us in general. But there are some that dislike him, although that number might be low compared to the rest. But then again, i don’t know all Slovenes.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

His record. And no, I’m not going to provide citations.

Yes, back to the good ol’ days of the USSR, but this time run by corrupt oligarchs instead of corrupt party officials.

The reason we don’t have the internal threats is *because *of the way we are governed. ** When an internal threat arises, we deal within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution. ** I can’t speak for the UK, obviously.

Not sure I understand your question. Are you asking what would happen if the Mexican govt were ousted by a popular uprising and a new govt took its place, and would Obama get involved? Yes, the U.S. federal government would get involved to some extent. It would monitor, attempt to bring peace and consensus through mediation and diplomacy. If necessary it would evacuate U.S. citizens, as it has done in other dangerous places around the world. Would the U.S. armed forces cross the Mexican border and occupy Mexican cities? No. Never.

So history and hardship don’t make any difference and it’s all because “Putin’s bad” and the Russians’ political infrastructure is corrupt? Try looking outside the country mate and realizing that removing the legacy of communism could take a 100 years. I didn’t know that you had internal state terror threats. You’ve completely ignored my arguments and talked about the US as if it can be compared to Russia. Don’t be ridiculous

That’s my question and he would get involved.

Oh really… regarding going in other countries??? Afghanistan, Irag etc etc etc. Oh and Grenada a while ago. Remember that?

 

[on_the_hill]

You’ve completely ignored my arguments and talked about the US as if it can be compared to Russia. Don’t be ridiculous

You asked if the US would be governed differently if we faced internal threats of the same magnitude that Russia does. I answered that we don’t have the same internal threats that Russia does because of the way we are governed. So you’re asking about a situation that doesn’t exist.

That’s my question and he would get involved.

Yes, he probably would. What he would not do is send U.S. forces across the border to occupy Mexican infrastructure. There’s a difference. Or can’t you see it?

Oh really… regarding going in other countries??? Afghanistan, Irag etc etc etc. Oh and Grenada a while ago. Remember that?

1. The situation in Afghanistan posed a threat to people’s lives and security around the world. Or would you have preferred that the 9/11 bombers’ training facilities remained operational?
2. Iraq was, at the time, thought to be a threat. The topic of the U.S.-led coalition that invaded and occupied Iraq is hotly debated here, and the vast majority of Americans view it to have been a mistake. Most of us view the invasion and occupation as a tragedy.
3. I’m not familiar enough with Grenada invasion to know. It was probably a mistake but there may have been some rationale for taking action at the time.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

You asked if the US would be governed differently if we faced internal threats of the same magnitude that Russia does. I answered that we don’t have the same internal threats that Russia does because of the way we are governed. So you’re asking about a situation that doesn’t exist.

Yes, he probably would. What he would not do is send U.S. forces across the border to occupy Mexican infrastructure. There’s a difference. Or can’t you see it?

1. The situation in Afghanistan posed a threat to people’s lives and security around the world. Or would you have preferred that the 9/11 bombers’ training facilities remained operational?
2. Iraq was, at the time, thought to be a threat. The topic of the U.S.-led coalition that invaded and occupied Iraq is hotly debated here, and the vast majority of Americans view it to have been a mistake. Most of us view the invasion and occupation as a tragedy.
3. I’m not familiar enough with Grenada invasion to know. It was probably a mistake but there may have been some rationale for taking action at the time.

:ehh:

The original point was that you said Putin was nefarious and I said that he has had to act in the way he has due to internal threats that have been there before and since the demise of communism. He was a member of the KGB and probably had to make all manner of compromise. It’s strange how you tried to change the argument by ignoring the original topic under discussion.
I think if Obama thought that there was a threat to the US states and there would directly be to Texas, I believe he would consider sending troops in and yes he would occupy a bordering country to stablise it in the way that Russia has with Crimea. Can you see the similarity with your earlier statement about protecting US citizens.

1. Really? I don’t think any of those monsters on the flights to the twin towers or the one that crashed in Penns. were from Afghanistan. You see my point? Also why are the troops leaving now? It’s more lawless than when they arrived. Also it’s miles away from you and it really never posed a threat did it?
2. I agree it wasn’t and they’re right but you’ll agree it was invaded? As for the UN mandate and all the “legal” arguments that get thrown up in defence of what the West did against what Russia “might do” I think that’s flawed. The West are against Putin because he would gain strategic control of what they’re after. Stop believing that secular political leaders are great leaders who command respect through national pride. Really naive stuff mate.
3. Funnily enough the invasion of Grenada was actually seen by the UK as a flagrant violation of international law at the time. However it was close to the US so it’s none of the UK’s business imo

 

[on_the_hill]

Oy vey. I didn’t change the discussion! You asked about U.S reactions to internal terror threats and how they would compare to Putin’s. I answered.

I maintain that Putin is nefarious. And I iterate my statement of dismay that people are willing to excuse his history and rationalize his actions in the Ukraine as somehow justifiable.

 

[VyMajoris]

That’s paranoid garbage mate and it’s the type of nonsense that causes problems when people believe it. Tracks to where exactly?

1. Russia and China - allies? C’mon
2. This unified terror network that exists throughout nations. Aye that’s evident alright It’s prevalent and they have agencies everywhere.
3. They’re not trying to destroy Western civilisation intentionally. That’s done from their stupidity. They think that allowing abortion on demand and encouraging amorality will make people “happy”.

All 3 make deals with each other…like the start of “The Naked Gun” in a Middle Eastern palace???

I just posted a list with more than 300 books about this issue. I take that you’ve not studied and verified each one of them before saying that this is “paranoid garbage”.

1. Don’t you remember Russia and China being against military innervation on Syria? Don’t you remember Russia and China warning the world about the Arab Spring? Don’t you know about the 2001 Sino-Russian Treaty of Friendship?
2. Are you talking about the Islamic Group? Terrorism for them is just a tool to achieve the universal caliphate. For what I know, I say that this is the most dangerous group, because Islam will fill the void left by secularism in many countries of Europe.
   René Guenon once said, either the Catholic Church recompose and get a hold of the Europe, or Islam will conquer everything. And he was working for the Islamic when he said that.
3. Some of them are, some of them aren’t. The fact is that they know very well that allowing abortion and promoting immorality will not make people “happy”. They are doing this because they know that it create chaos and destruction. But how much destruction they want? I don’t know… Some of them are involved in Satanism and are willing to do anything.

Wrong. It’s the Trilateral Commission working in collaboration with the Illuminati.

Yes, the Bildenberg is not working alone. There is the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations and other groups. Now, I don’t know enough about the so called “Illuminati”, but I must say to you that this group is deeply involved in satanic rituals.

 

[Megan7]

Putin is a devout Christian. He made several urges to Russians, to get religion back in their lives. With his help, Christianity there is growing. Putin’s party also proposed a law introducing prison for offences against religious symbols. I also believe the famous “anti-gay” laws if we can call them that, were accepted based on religion.

Most people here live in USA or the West for that matter, i live in the West too. So i understand there is a lot of anti-Putin propaganda, especially in the USA. I don’t know Putin but based on his actions, he seems like a good strong leader that any country needs. But probably we will see his true nature, whether he is a moral man or not, in the future.

I like Mr Putin, I think his conversion was sincere. I think he is also sincere when he says that the US is a God less nation, look at our fruits. And I agree with him. I like how he has tried to protect children from sexual indoctrination from the homosexual agenda, etc. etc.
I like how he has tried to help families & encourage people to have children. I wish more leaders were like him. When God touches your heart, you can change. He has my vote

 

[Nelka]

I maintain that Putin is nefarious. And I iterate my statement of dismay that people are willing to excuse his history and rationalize his actions in the Ukraine as somehow justifiable.

Why is it wrong for Russia to do what they are doing in Ukraine without bloodshed but absolutely fine for the west to invade Iraq and cause much bloodshed for fake reasons?

That’s like me beating the living daylights out of my wife and children and telling people it is for the good of the family but when my neighbour raises his voice to his wife and children I call the police because he is wrong.

:coffeeread:

 

[on_the_hill]

Why is it wrong for Russia to do what they are doing in Ukraine without bloodshed but absolutely fine for the west to invade Iraq and cause much bloodshed for fake reasons?

They are substantially different from one another in many ways.

What if Scotland votes for independence–would it be o.k. for England to send soldiers across the border to protect Scottish citizens of English descent from violence, even when there is no threat of violence? Would it be o.k. for England to annex parts of Scotland that are predominantly ethnically English?

 

[Miserissima]

They are substantially different from one another in many ways.

What if Scotland votes for independence–would it be o.k. for England to send soldiers across the border to protect Scottish citizens of English descent from violence, even when there is no threat of violence? Would it be o.k. for England to annex parts of Scotland that are predominantly ethnically English?

That was my point in the Ukraine thread, but I’ve had a change of heart.

Say that not only the gentry but the blue collars were English. They took over the land and their only national allegiance wasn’t to England by ethnicity, but that England are the only ones can GUARANTEE their paycheck.

This isn’t manipulation of any high ideal. This is the cultural roots of the proletariat coupled with surety of income. This is how it becomes intensely personal.

Unlike the Scots, Crimeans do not have an established national or cultural identity to counter propaganda This means there is no allegiance to Ukraine. And if you want to manipulate someone most effectively, reach for his personal pocketbook immediately, not tell them about the future state of the national economy.

Crimeans see themselves as happily displaced Russians on land that is more Russian than Ukrainian. (Not all, but who can fight personal economic blackmail?)

It is a different mindset than we know in the West: “I am of Russian origin and descent, this is my land, so as my allegiance goes, so does my property.”

No one there has read Hyman Kaplan, and would not understand a melting pot mentality wherein, “This is American land and it is also my land.”

 

[MaryandJoseph]

My husband and I were discussing Putin just the other day. We both agreed that we have more respect for our “enemy” then in our own president.

I personally respect Putin inasmuch as he is a powerful leader and does not seem to Bow to “Political Correctness”, such as his stance on the gay agenda issue.

Like or don’t like him…At least you know where he stands relative to his country and he does not, at least it appears, to be Wishy-Washy.

He is a tough leader who needs to be taken seriously.

Oh how I wish we had a stronger leader.

Disclaimer: Respect does not always equate with LIKE

 

[manualman]

Beats me how catholics can be enamored of Putin. He’s a thug, writ large. His leadership pretty clearly says to me that his Christianity is a veneer to provide him respectability among the votership, not something that profoundly shapes his principles. Russian daily life has been slowly slipping back into totalitarian control for years. Media freedom is largely squelched (troublesome reporters tend to disappear or the ownership of the entire network is suddenly convicted of nebulous crimes), ownership of economic assets is increasingly restricted to Putin’s political allies, he invaded Georgia to take what he wanted for Russia and now he’s invading Ukraine to take what he wants.

These are simply not the actions of a devoted Christian leader. Catholics should have learned from the whole Franco debacle not to give their devotion to the first guy who comes along professing devotion to Christ and tossing a few token crumbs for the faithful’s consumption. It’s the BIG picture that matters, not a few small things.

 

[on_the_hill]

Catholics should have learned from the whole Franco debacle

I agree, but didn’t want to open that can of worms.