Building a church or standing up for a religious value does not make a leader a Franco nor a Mussolini.
It is idiocy to assert that it does.
If a person says hey that leader did a good thing rebuilding a church, or hey that leader was right to stand up for a Christian value, it doesn’t mean they are a lover of Franco or Mussolini (as you directly accused someone above of).
You insist Putin has no Christian motivation whatsoever.
Are you pretending to be God? A mind reader?
Why not be honest and admit you don’t know.
I don’t know — there I am honest.
Sure, there have been plenty of people in history of have grandstanded for religion for their own purposes.
But there also have been plenty of sincere believers, who have been demonized to say they had no good motivations when in fact they did.
Was George Bush a devil for invading Iraq?
Was Abraham Lincoln a deeply wicked individual for sanctioning the war crimes of Sherman rampaging in the South to bring the war to a more rapid close?
How about the approval of the nuclear bombing at the end of WWII, is that proof Truman was unchristian?
Many people think it saved hundreds of thousands of lives, on balance.
How about Ronald Reagan, was he Satan for the events with the Contras?
Each of these people had a virtuous consciences that were challenged by the realities of governing a nation and world affairs. Yet at the same time they were imperfect humans with selfish and corrupted desires as well. You gonna say they were simply Unchristian?
How easy for you.
For you, you can read minds and it is all black and white.
Putin killed people in Chechnya, so that’s it for you he is the devil.
Do the people victimized by Chechens factor into your thinking even a little bit?
Did you ever consider how many MORE people would have been victimized if it hadn’t been retaken?
Again, the territory of Chechnya was being used as a base to attack the rest of Russia including Daegestan. The problem wasn’t going to go away, it was just a question of how much damage it would be allowed to do.
Doing nothing would make Putin guilty for doing nothing. And how many more people would have been kidnapped and killed by Chechnya’s kidnapping industry? The invasions from expansionist muslims? Then there is all the airplane, school, and theatre terrorism that came out of there.
Would letting that continue really have been “Christian”?
How was he supposed to deal with the problem, ask nicely?
No...
"In case your memory is faulty: "No, only oppressive dictators who magically become devout defenders of the faith when it becomes politically convenient. None of these guys were Christian until they needed to portray themselves as traditional, Christian heroes of the nation. In other words, a personality cult tailored for the nation.""
If someone called a man a "heroic figure", and that man happened to make himself dictator, consolidated the state under his sole control, consistently acted to restrict freedoms and enforced all of this with killings, torture and imprisonment, then yes I'm perfectly fine with saying that that person might have supported Franco and Mussolini as well.
Because all three acted oppressively, and used brute force to suppress dissension, yet all the while hid behind a Christian facade. Just because he builds a church, and makes himself the champion of the Roman Catholic Church or Russian Orthodox Church, doesn't even begin to wash away the criminal acts that Putin has done.
You insist Putin has no Christian motivation whatsoever. Are you pretending to be God? A mind reader? Why not be honest and admit you don’t know. I don’t know — there I am honest.
I'm about as sure that Putin is not a real Christian, as I am sure Mussolini, Franco, Obama, Pelosi and Hillary are not real Christians. Because they profess to be Christian, and act to some degree as a Christian would, but at the same time continue to push policies that are distinctively un-Christian.
Was George Bush a devil for invading Iraq? Was Abraham Lincoln a deeply wicked individual for sanctioning the war crimes of Sherman rampaging in the South to bring the war to a more rapid close? How about the approval of the nuclear bombing at the end of WWII, is that proof Truman was unchristian? Many people think it saved hundreds of thousands of lives, on balance. How about Ronald Reagan, was he Satan for the events with the Contras?
First, all of those President was elected in a fair elections. None of these Presidents instituted policies that suppressed dissension with killings, detentions and torture.
Bush, Truman, Lincoln were given explicit authority from Congress to prosecute the wars that they led. All of them made controversial decisions in the national interest, and not their own. While Putin made his bloody decisions to keep himself in power, and enrich himself. The killing of journalists, and contract killings of the opposition make that fairly obvious. (14 years now...)
Bush, Lincoln, Reagan and Truman also had a long history of being a devout Christian. Contrast that to Putin, who conveniently converted to Christianity in 1996 when he first entered politics. And I'm pretty sure Reagan didn't know about the Iran-Contra scandal, negligent to be sure, but hardly criminal.
As for Chechnya, the terrorists that seized the province were evil and indiscriminate. But Putin, the way he shelled entire cities into oblivion, exterminated entire villages, acting in a manner that appeared to be motivated more by inspiring terror and revenge, is as bloodstained as they are. This was overseen by his Muslim lackeys, especially Kadyrov. In short, instead of just targeting the terrorists he targeted everybody in Chechnya that didn't actively support him.
Putin is also perfectly happy with being Iran's lifeline to a nuclear bomb. This is the country that has vowed to wipe Israel off the map. And he also invaded Georgia.
Putin has enough blood on his hands, and his oppression and dictatorial policies that advocate imprisonment and killings of his enemies seems solely focused on keeping himself in power. And the reasons for this is apparent.
What leader circumvents the Russian Constitution like Putin has, running as Prime Minister and then as President again? How would it seem in America, if after 8 years of Bill Clinton, he decided to run as Vice-President to Al Gore and won through rampant electoral fraud. And then after 4 years of Gore, Clinton changes the rules and runs as President again for 6 years?