Crimeans Who Ushered in the Russians Now Have to Live With Their Choice

[pepipop]

It has the hammer and sickle which is representative of communism, and therefore should be anathema to any Christian, i.e., we cannot divest the flag of the symbols that are uniquely linked to a destructive atheistic ideology that has killed more individuals than any other ideology in the history of mankind.

p.s. I shouldn’t have to tell another Christian this.

No you shouldn’t. However the banner is the official symbol of the Victory of the Soviet people against Nazi Germany during the second world war. The fact the USSR were communist at the time, which everyone is fully aware of, is neither here nor there. It’s a historical fact of life. The fact they are not communist anymore, is to be celebrated but does not change the fact that it is their official victory flag from that era.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It has the hammer and sickle which is representative of communism, and therefore should be anathema to any Christian, i.e., we cannot divest the flag of the symbols that are uniquely linked to a destructive atheistic ideology that has killed more individuals than any other ideology in the history of mankind.

p.s. I shouldn’t have to tell another Christian this.

Well, there’s also the Nazi flag which accompanied many troops and flew over many a conquered city too, and there are, we are assured, Germans who still venerate it. To some, it probably represents things they value that are better than the worst things for which it stood.

But on second thought, I think the avatar is exactly right for the poster. I truly do. It could save the average viewer a lot of time in figuring out why the poster says what he does. Whether it (or the Nazi flag) is appropriate for a Catholic forum, I would question. Even the Russians abandoned it, knowing what it really stood for, though it would not greatly surprise me if Putin brought it back to fly over the Kremlin. I will not suggest that any other posters adopt it, though some might lay rightful claim to it.

If Putin did ditch the present flag and reinstate the hammer and sickle, I think that would be appropriate too. After all, if he maintains a shrine to Lenin and statues to Dzherzinsky, and is proud on the moniker “Chekist”, why not add the hammer and sickle? There is some merit in clarity of message, no matter how odious the message.

 

[josie_L]

No you shouldn’t. However the banner is the official symbol of the Victory of the Soviet people against Nazi Germany during the second world war. The fact the USSR were communist at the time, which everyone is fully aware of, is neither here nor there. It’s a historical fact of life. The fact they are not communist anymore, is to be celebrated but does not change the fact that it is their official victory flag from that era.

If Russia is truly being Christianized than I suggest they alter the flag by removing said hammer and sickle that is uniquely representative of communism, i.e., it’s an insult to all the millions of Russian Christians who died because of this sick and odious/atheistic ideology.

p.s. Celebrate your victory over Nazism without having the very symbols of an ideology that killed more Russians than Nazism ever did.

 

[josie_L]

Well, there’s also the Nazi flag which accompanied many troops and flew over many a conquered city too, and there are, we are assured, Germans who still venerate it. To some, it probably represents things they value that are better than the worst things for which it stood.

But on second thought, I think the avatar is exactly right for the poster. I truly do. It could save the average viewer a lot of time in figuring out why the poster says what he does. Whether it (or the Nazi flag) is appropriate for a Catholic forum, I would question.Even the Russians abandoned it, knowing what it really stood for, though it would not greatly surprise me if Putin brought it back to fly over the Kremlin. I will not suggest that any other posters adopt it, though some might lay rightful claim to it.

If Putin did ditch the present flag and reinstate the hammer and sickle, I think that would be appropriate too. After all, if he maintains a shrine to Lenin and statues to Dzherzinsky, and is proud on the moniker “Chekist”, why not add the hammer and sickle? There is some merit in clarity of message, no matter how odious the message.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

This thread is wandering

Please charitably discuss the original topic, not other members.

If you feel some one is violating a forum rule, please report the post stating exactly what rule you feel it is violating

 

[Klemens_Hadwig]

It has the hammer and sickle which is representative of communism, and therefore should be anathema to any Christian, i.e., we cannot divest the flag of the symbols that are uniquely linked to a destructive atheistic ideology that has killed more individuals than any other ideology in the history of mankind.

p.s. I shouldn’t have to tell another Christian this.

I do not to intend to divert this thread any further. I will offer this one post and only this one post with regard to the subject of the Знамя Победы.

As far as I know, you are neither Russian, nor have connexion to Russia. Jharek has family connexions and personal ties. He understands this banner differently from the westerner. I understand this banner differently than the westerner. It is the same banner that flew over the ruins of the Reichstag. Thus, it is the banner of victory, not the banner of the International.

This is a Russian holiday. It has its own symbols and various means of celebration. You should understand that not all symbols have the universal meaning. Do you decry the Indian who uses the swastika as a traditional good luck symbol as a Nazi sympathiser? Furthermore, there is no other ‘Victory Banner’ in Russia. There is the St George Ribbon, but that is not a flag. Ultimately, there are no parallel Russian equivalents for the Victory Banner that I am aware of. Lastly, so many generations of Russian have associated the Victory Banner as the symbol of 1945 that a change would not be regarded favourably.

History is not syncretic. It is the sum of all events. Remember that everything has both a good and bad side, with matters only differing in their proportions of good and bad aspects. Even the USSR had its positives, if indeed far fewer from its negatives. You should not forget that it was the USSR that ultimately liberated Europe from that dark shadow of fascism and the German. The soldiers of the USSR were the ones to fight the German continuously from Moscow to Berlin between 1941 until 1945. Soviet soldiers achieved the final victory.

 

[Klemens_Hadwig]

The problem with this is that the reverse is also true,

It takes only one madman to make an evil aristocracy.
It takes only a few madman to make an evil oligarchy.
It takes many madman to make an evil aristocracy.
It takes a large majority to make an evil democracy.

You’re essentially putting all your eggs in one basket in the hopes that an authoritarian ruler will be benevolent, for every Napoleon, Caesar, Augustus, you get a Nero, Pol Pot, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, etc.

First, I believe that you never even mentioned autocracy in your list. You must be in agreement with me

In all seriousness, however:

All of the leaders that you described were upstarts who usurped their respective positions. Most came from the lower part of society with absolutely no predisposition to rule. As an old Polish lady once said ‘the straw sticks out of his loafers.’. Imagine an uneducated, impulsive, base person winning the lottery. You can imagine how they will spend the money. The same goes for political power. (Perhaps this phenomenon of the modern century dictator also questions the benefits of so-called ‘upward mobility’ )
By autocracy, I am basically calling for an unobstructed monarch. In other words, a dynastic leader unobstructed by both a nobility or constitution.

As for hereditary rule, there are numerous benefits which should be elaborated. As you know, companies, businesses, trades, and other fields occupied by generationally-transmissive families have a long track record of success. Experience through exposure is gained from the beginning of the successors life, be it a simple businessman or ruler. Such experience ingrains knowledge in a way that normal training simply does not.
Furthermore, the lack of an opening to anybody and the presence of social stratification act as a barrier for the charismatic manipulator/usurper (Hitler, General Bonaparte, Hussein).

It seems that all the criticism of non-democratic/illiberal rule limits itself to examples from only XIX and XX century usurpers. Numerous good monarchs (another word for dynastic autocrat) ruled the nations of the world since the emergence of civilisation. Furthermore, alternative systems of government emerged during many points throughout history (Athenian democracy, the Roman Republic, etc.). Generally, these experiments fail, with a nearly gyroscopic return to monarchic/illiberal rule. Perhaps the present liberal experiment has long passed its expiration date. There is no such thing as new or old ideas in politics. There are simply ideas that are favourable or unfavourable to various competing groups. In short, politics simply involve the clash of interests. Institutionalising this confrontation as a legitimate social phenomenon is the perfect road to moral chaos and the literal decomposition of society in favour of individualistic caprices (the present-day west), since any sense of concrete authority (and consequently objectivity) is dispelled by the presence of ‘two truths’.

 

[BackHand]

So with a population of 300,000,000 Americans there are 17000 Americans who oppose shooting homosexuals in the head? I am sure that in Russia, there would be many more than that opposing harassment of homosexuals.
The California ballot proposal shows that there is discrimination against homosexuals in the USA, as there is in other places of the world, including Russia. So the argument which singles out Russia for this is not credible.

Let me address your argument piece by piece.

So with a population of 300,000,000 Americans there are 17000 Americans who oppose shooting homosexuals in the head?

No this was not a poll that interviewed hundreds of millions of Americans then found that only 17,000 were against execution of gays, this was a online petition against a specific piece of backwater Californian legislation. This is the logical equivalent of saying " There was a fascist rally in Russia." “Only 4000 Russians counterprotested!” " Therefore 99% of Russians are fascists!"

I am sure that in Russia, there would be many more than that opposing harassment of homosexuals.

Yes the same nation that actually has anti-homosexual laws would protest more against anti-homosexual laws. Class A logic.

The California ballot proposal shows that there is discrimination against homosexuals in the USA, as there is in other places of the world, including Russia.

Cherry picking fallacy! You’re using one specific example to paint a broad stroke of an entire people.

goo.gl/c5otLT

nydailynews.com/news/national/boy-scouts-accept-openly-gay-youth-starting-new-year-day-article-1.1560298

Examples of American homophobia.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/sl...arade/rtr3ss5l.jpg.CROP.promo-mediumlarge.jpg

Find me 15 openly gay Russian politicians then we’ll talk.

 

[BackHand]

It was a proposal by a nutcase that will never see the light of day (as is verified by the tens of thousands who petitioned against it), in other words, the state sponsored persecution of LGBT in Russia does not compare to the crazy ramblings of a lone wolf.

Exactly!

p.s. Apparently the argument against the West by posters such as yourself is that we are too lenient on gays (allowing them to proliferate their LGBT agenda), so my question to you is: are we persecuting gays or are we too lenient with them, which is it? :rolleyes

A rock and a hard place!

 

[Rau]

Looks like there are different versions of what was or wasn’t on the ballot in the fake referendum. I have read accounts that say joining Russia wasn’t on it.

Here’s an account from a reasonable source that says it was on it, but keeping things as they were was not on it. One could vote for Russia or to return to an older constitution, but you could not keep things as they were.

nytimes.com/2014/03/15/world/europe/crimea-vote-does-not-offer-choice-of-status-quo.html?_r=0

But again, at this point the details of the phony referendum don’t matter too much because Crimea has been annexed to Russia and that’s the end of it. The whole world condemns the fraud, but with Putin telling everybody his finger is on the nuclear trigger for even lesser reasons, the world isn’t going to do anything about it.

Putin couldn’t even get China to vote with him in the Security Council. Not one nation on it backed him up. Not even Venezuela. China abstained.

Not surprising no country wants to see this kind of outcome. What has not been discussed is whether any large group ought to have a right to secede. Some countries, such as Iraq, lack fundamental cohesion but no democratic and legal mechanism to address it.

 

[Rubia]

Not surprising no country wants to see this kind of outcome. What has not been discussed is whether any large group ought to have a right to secede. Some countries, such as Iraq, lack fundamental cohesion but no democratic and legal mechanism to address it.

It is called the right of self-determination. Has happened in large sweeps three times: The breakdown of Ottoman empire, the formerly colonized states of Africa and Asia and the end of Soviet union. Certainly, there is no “annexation” in Crimea as far as International law. Only cessation and merger. For an example of an actual annexation, anti-Russian CAF bloggers ought to look at NATO member Turkey’s occupation of Northern Cyprus. I dont see any huffing and puffing about evil Turkey there and how the USA has this weird duty to start a war with Turkey to reverse it.

 

[josie_L]

It is called the right of self-determination. Has happened in large sweeps three times: The breakdown of Ottoman empire, the formerly colonized states of Africa and Asia and the end of Soviet union. Certainly, there is no “annexation” in Crimea as far as International law. Only cessation and merger. For an example of an actual annexation, anti-Russian CAF bloggers ought to look at NATO member Turkey’s occupation of Northern Cyprus. I dont see any huffing and puffing about evil Turkey there and how the USA has this weird duty to start a war with Turkey to reverse it.

I would like nothing more than for Northern Cyprus to be part of the rest of Cyprus, and it would be nice if you ask before you assume we’re anti-Russian.

p.s. Yes, Crimea was annexed as per International law (Russian troops seized the peninsula and/or territory of another country, i.e., this was not the handiwork of Crimeans only, and that’s assuming there was a large majority of Crimeans who wanted to secede).