LAKE SELIGER, Russia — President Vladimir Putin said Friday that Russia's armed forces, backed by its nuclear arsenal, were ready to meet any aggression, declaring at a pro-Kremlin youth camp that foreign states should understand: "It's best not to mess with us."
Russian GRU defector Stanislav Lunev said in his autobiography that "the GRU and the KGB helped to fund just about every antiwar movement and organization in America and abroad," and that during the Vietnam War the USSR gave $1 billion to American anti-war movements, more than it gave to the VietCong.[19] Lunev described this as a "hugely successful campaign and well worth the cost".[19] According to Time magazine, a US State Department official estimated that the KGB may have spent $600 million on the peace offensive up to 1983, channeling funds through national Communist parties or the World Peace Council "to a host of new antiwar organizations that would, in many cases, reject the financial help if they knew the source."[13] Richard Felix Staar in his book Foreign Policies of the Soviet Union says that non-communist peace movements without overt ties to the USSR were "virtually controlled" by it. Lord Chalfont claimed that the Soviet Union was giving the European peace movement £100 million a year. The Federation of Conservative Students (FCS) alleged Soviet funding of CND.
In 1985 Time magazine noted "the suspicions of some Western scientists that the nuclear winter hypothesis was promoted by Moscow to give antinuclear groups in the U.S. and Europe some fresh ammunition against America's arms buildup."[20] Sergei Tretyakov claimed that the data behind the nuclear winter scenario was faked by the KGB and spread in the west as part of a campaign against Pershing missiles.[21] He said that the first peer-reviewed paper in the development of the nuclear winter hypothesis, "Twilight at Noon" by Paul Crutzen and John Birks (1982),[22] was published as a result of this KGB influence.
I hope very much that not just Russia’s historical memory but that all of humanity will prompt us to search for peaceful solutions to the various conflicts that are currently unfolding and that will arise in the future. We support political dialogue and the search for compromise.
That would be a lot more meaningful if Putin didn't have 100 tanks fighting in Ukraine.
The problem you face is that extremism has a long and fairly well known history among atheist regimes.
And who are the "anti-theists" if not atheists?
If you are asked the question, "Do you believe in god," there are basically three answers: yes, no, I don't know. Those answers map to: theist, atheist, and agnostic.
Perhaps to try to defend science from the militant Christian nuts
No, that isn't it. The common thread there is atheism, not "defending science." Besides, there are already science clubs in many schools. Why do something redundant? It's about atheism, supporting and spreading the atheist belief... or should I say faith?
What has that to do with this thread about the number of the beast?
You're replying to the wrong person. What I replied to is below, which also has nothing to do with the number of the beast. Why didn't you reply to that? Or was it your ox being gored?
When has "fact" had anything to do with religious outrage?
----
BTW, why single atheist communists out from other ideological or religious nut cases?
Because they were left out of the initial statement, which was probably from an atheist.
But more to the point, 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers were citizens Saudi Arabia. I'd suggest you pretty much have it ass backwards.
Actually I'm the one that has it right and you're the one that has it ass backwards. Those hijackers were Islamic extremists acting as members of the international terrorist organization al Qaida, not as members of the Saudi government, its armed forces, or organizations under its control. How is it that you don't get that? Is everything that US citizens do outside the country at the order of the US government? Clearly not.
Maybe you haven't heard but al Qaida is fighting against the Saudi government and wants to overthrow it.
Iran is the mess it is now (from our perspective) directly because the US fucked them over in 1953.
Once again you have it completely wrong. The US and UK didn't "fuck them over," they helped Iran recover from a coup. The Prime Minister had effectively overthrown the government having faked an election, dissolved the parliament, was ruling by decree, and ignoring the last check on his power - the right of the head of state, the Shah, to dismiss the Prime Minister. Restoring the Shah to power gave Iran a chance.
If we quit listening to these numb-nutted war neo-cons, maybe we wouldn't keep finding ourselves in bad situations decades later....
Question: Does the Soviet Union still rule Afghanistan? Does the Soviet Union still rule Eastern Europe? No? Apparently the factions you favor can take no part of the credit for that.
although with the whole Iraq/Afghanistan thing, it didn't even take decades.
That is pretty much nonsense. The problem of Islamist extremism has been growing for decades in the Middle East and South-West Asia. Maybe you've heard of the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon? The problem is decades older than even that.... in its current form.
It's an almost completely irrelevant point. They were Islamic extremists acting as part of the international terrorist organization al Qaida, not part of the Saudi government. By a similar token, if the IRA had conducted the attack would you blame the Irish government or the country of Ireland? No.
The only actual censorship is going on at the colleges, which is why that is a bigger problem. There isn't any censorship going on when used to prevent disruption of events. They would probably see less use if demonstrators wouldn't disrupt the actual events, using the heckler's veto, to harm the free speech rights of other people. You don't speak for all people that believe in smaller government. Even smaller government is expected to maintain law and order.
The persecution of Christians in so-called communist regimes is really a side-effect of the fact that these Christian groups are primarily foreign-funded.
That is utter rubbish. Communist regimes had a long history of persecuting their local churches.
You mean like in Syria where the end result has been ISIS?
That's not really a good example since the US and the West didn't back the moderates in a timely fashion. That allowed the Islamist extremists like al Qaida to stream into Syria to form ISIS. If the moderates had been stronger earlier that might not have happened.
I don't think that the current Iranian president is particularly liberal.
As to the Saudis versus the Iranians - at least our friends aren't looking to attack us and work with us on many matters of common interest. You can't really say that about the Iranians.
it wasn't that long ago that there were unofficial death sentences for not embracing Christianity, at least for natives sent to the residential schools here in Canada.
Color me skeptical.
On the other hand, persecution of Christians around the world, including murder, is well known. The record of the officially atheist communist regimes was often quite bad.
Go over to several middle-eastern shitholes, and there's plenty of barbaric behavior dressed up in the name of both religions.
Where in the Middle East is all this "Christian" head chopping going on? That isn't really happening, is it?
No, it's because they are of the opinion that it's fantasy designed to scare primitive people into accepting social rules (aka "Law").
No, that is yet another but different mistaken idea that some people have. What I was referring to are the people who think that Hell is where all the "fun" will be so they like the idea of going there. Neither belief nor disbelief in it changes its existence any more than the existence of London or Brigadoon.
Slashdot Mirror
For some reason The Moscow Times is clear about it, how is it you aren't?
Don't Mess With Nuclear Russia, Putin Warns at Youth Camp
LAKE SELIGER, Russia — President Vladimir Putin said Friday that Russia's armed forces, backed by its nuclear arsenal, were ready to meet any aggression, declaring at a pro-Kremlin youth camp that foreign states should understand: "It's best not to mess with us."
He did, but he apparently paid attention.
Soviet influence on the peace movement
Russian GRU defector Stanislav Lunev said in his autobiography that "the GRU and the KGB helped to fund just about every antiwar movement and organization in America and abroad," and that during the Vietnam War the USSR gave $1 billion to American anti-war movements, more than it gave to the VietCong.[19] Lunev described this as a "hugely successful campaign and well worth the cost".[19] According to Time magazine, a US State Department official estimated that the KGB may have spent $600 million on the peace offensive up to 1983, channeling funds through national Communist parties or the World Peace Council "to a host of new antiwar organizations that would, in many cases, reject the financial help if they knew the source."[13] Richard Felix Staar in his book Foreign Policies of the Soviet Union says that non-communist peace movements without overt ties to the USSR were "virtually controlled" by it. Lord Chalfont claimed that the Soviet Union was giving the European peace movement £100 million a year. The Federation of Conservative Students (FCS) alleged Soviet funding of CND.
In 1985 Time magazine noted "the suspicions of some Western scientists that the nuclear winter hypothesis was promoted by Moscow to give antinuclear groups in the U.S. and Europe some fresh ammunition against America's arms buildup."[20] Sergei Tretyakov claimed that the data behind the nuclear winter scenario was faked by the KGB and spread in the west as part of a campaign against Pershing missiles.[21] He said that the first peer-reviewed paper in the development of the nuclear winter hypothesis, "Twilight at Noon" by Paul Crutzen and John Birks (1982),[22] was published as a result of this KGB influence.
I hope very much that not just Russia’s historical memory but that all of humanity will prompt us to search for peaceful solutions to the various conflicts that are currently unfolding and that will arise in the future. We support political dialogue and the search for compromise.
That would be a lot more meaningful if Putin didn't have 100 tanks fighting in Ukraine.
Russia has up to 100 battle tanks fighting in Ukraine, UK believes
Putin likens Ukraine's forces to Nazis and threatens standoff in the Arctic
Do you have any thoughts as to how many of the questions Putin got were plants orchestrated to deliver a message?
Contradict? Not so much. The atheist believes there is no god, the atheist clubs support its members and try to spread that belief.
“Atheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas . . . for it is the assertion of a universal negative.” - G. K. Chesterton
This lack of belief can not create extremism.
The problem you face is that extremism has a long and fairly well known history among atheist regimes.
And who are the "anti-theists" if not atheists?
If you are asked the question, "Do you believe in god," there are basically three answers: yes, no, I don't know. Those answers map to: theist, atheist, and agnostic.
Perhaps to try to defend science from the militant Christian nuts
No, that isn't it. The common thread there is atheism, not "defending science." Besides, there are already science clubs in many schools. Why do something redundant? It's about atheism, supporting and spreading the atheist belief ... or should I say faith?
No. We get it
Actually no, you don't. You've just demonstrated that yet again.
I hate to burst your bubble but your "fan base" is hardly universal.
The only thing harming people's free speech rights is the government. Other people speaking cannot do that, even if they "disrupt" some event.
Disruption is harm. You don't have a right to disrupt other people's events.
I speak only for people who truly believe in small government.
You speak for yourself.
You must not have understood what he wrote, that isn't it at all.
What has that to do with this thread about the number of the beast?
You're replying to the wrong person. What I replied to is below, which also has nothing to do with the number of the beast. Why didn't you reply to that? Or was it your ox being gored?
When has "fact" had anything to do with religious outrage?
----
BTW, why single atheist communists out from other ideological or religious nut cases?
Because they were left out of the initial statement, which was probably from an atheist.
You're a little late. The sub-thread was about slandering religion to start with.
In short, you don't accept the findings of the National Science Foundation. Fine.
But more to the point, 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers were citizens Saudi Arabia. I'd suggest you pretty much have it ass backwards.
Actually I'm the one that has it right and you're the one that has it ass backwards. Those hijackers were Islamic extremists acting as members of the international terrorist organization al Qaida, not as members of the Saudi government, its armed forces, or organizations under its control. How is it that you don't get that? Is everything that US citizens do outside the country at the order of the US government? Clearly not.
Maybe you haven't heard but al Qaida is fighting against the Saudi government and wants to overthrow it.
Iran is the mess it is now (from our perspective) directly because the US fucked them over in 1953.
Once again you have it completely wrong. The US and UK didn't "fuck them over," they helped Iran recover from a coup. The Prime Minister had effectively overthrown the government having faked an election, dissolved the parliament, was ruling by decree, and ignoring the last check on his power - the right of the head of state, the Shah, to dismiss the Prime Minister. Restoring the Shah to power gave Iran a chance.
If we quit listening to these numb-nutted war neo-cons, maybe we wouldn't keep finding ourselves in bad situations decades later....
Question: Does the Soviet Union still rule Afghanistan? Does the Soviet Union still rule Eastern Europe? No? Apparently the factions you favor can take no part of the credit for that.
although with the whole Iraq/Afghanistan thing, it didn't even take decades.
That is pretty much nonsense. The problem of Islamist extremism has been growing for decades in the Middle East and South-West Asia. Maybe you've heard of the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon? The problem is decades older than even that.... in its current form.
When has "fact" had anything to do with religious outrage?
Why don't we ask the atheist communists that imprisoned, tortured, and murdered people for going to church?
Oh oh! Looks like we have some anti-science moderators that don't accept the conclusion of the National Science Foundation. The horror!
It's an almost completely irrelevant point. They were Islamic extremists acting as part of the international terrorist organization al Qaida, not part of the Saudi government. By a similar token, if the IRA had conducted the attack would you blame the Irish government or the country of Ireland? No.
The only actual censorship is going on at the colleges, which is why that is a bigger problem. There isn't any censorship going on when used to prevent disruption of events. They would probably see less use if demonstrators wouldn't disrupt the actual events, using the heckler's veto, to harm the free speech rights of other people. You don't speak for all people that believe in smaller government. Even smaller government is expected to maintain law and order.
So you think that the National Science Foundation acted rashly after years of study? Darn them and their precipitous action!
This is why it is impossible for Atheism to become extremist.
Impossible? Hardly.
League of Militant Atheists
An atheist has no beliefs.
On the contrary, an atheist believes there is no God. An agnostic isn't sure.
Atheism is an ideology in the same way that "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.
Which is why they form clubs?
The persecution of Christians in so-called communist regimes is really a side-effect of the fact that these Christian groups are primarily foreign-funded.
That is utter rubbish. Communist regimes had a long history of persecuting their local churches.
You mean like in Syria where the end result has been ISIS?
That's not really a good example since the US and the West didn't back the moderates in a timely fashion. That allowed the Islamist extremists like al Qaida to stream into Syria to form ISIS. If the moderates had been stronger earlier that might not have happened.
I don't think that the current Iranian president is particularly liberal.
As to the Saudis versus the Iranians - at least our friends aren't looking to attack us and work with us on many matters of common interest. You can't really say that about the Iranians.
I'm often impressed by the ability of my critics to find yet another dead end road to travel.
Matthew Parris: As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God
it wasn't that long ago that there were unofficial death sentences for not embracing Christianity, at least for natives sent to the residential schools here in Canada.
Color me skeptical.
On the other hand, persecution of Christians around the world, including murder, is well known. The record of the officially atheist communist regimes was often quite bad.
Go over to several middle-eastern shitholes, and there's plenty of barbaric behavior dressed up in the name of both religions.
Where in the Middle East is all this "Christian" head chopping going on? That isn't really happening, is it?
No, it's because they are of the opinion that it's fantasy designed to scare primitive people into accepting social rules (aka "Law").
No, that is yet another but different mistaken idea that some people have. What I was referring to are the people who think that Hell is where all the "fun" will be so they like the idea of going there. Neither belief nor disbelief in it changes its existence any more than the existence of London or Brigadoon.
The pope essentially said the same thing recently when he said that young people spend too much time on the Internet.
Did he? It looks like you don't quite have that right.
Pope Francis says the Internet is a 'gift from God'
Pope Francis: Internet is a blessing
The Pope's view is a bit more insightful and nuanced than you state.
You should read the article, you're wrong.