Bomb attacks on Brussels airport

[Snowhobbit]

You didn't answered my question at all.

Turkey is ruled by a mad idiot but he doesn't blow up people. (Actually he is incapable of it)
In Europe you only view blowing up European people as "bad", and support terrorism directly if it blows up others. (Poor Belgium was chosen as the heart of it, which made it vulnerable.)

And as you can read from my posts, I would defend anything "when" my country does it. I am so evil, don't bother deny anything.

But again, these all are not related with my question. I already know what you think. "Turkey is ISIS, oh my God terrorists at Belgium killed Europeans this time, how evil is this!!" bla bla bla...

So forget all about it. My question is:

Turkey already has hundreds of aircraft and tanks, about to produce it's national tank and helicopter. Turkey might even have several atomic bombs left from cold war. How do you think few million more Euros makes a difference?.. It's kind of hillarious :D

That is fun maths they teach in Turkey. 6 billion does not equal a few million.
Did he whisper lovingly in your ear that he could never hurt anyone?

Your nationalistic drivel makes it quite clear what you think of the government campaigns against the untermensch, have you also taken up the government practice of arguing using strawmen? You are a very sad reflection of a large share of the Turkish electorate.

I love the insinuation that you'd use nukes internally on your own civilian population, you're way too cool for school bro.

[Yesugey]

That is fun maths they teach in Turkey. 6 billion does not equal a few million.
Did he whisper lovingly in your ear that he could never hurt anyone?

Your nationalistic drivel makes it quite clear what you think of the government campaigns against the untermensch, have you also taken up the government practice of arguing using strawmen? You are a very sad reflection of a large share of the Turkish electorate.

I love the insinuation that you'd use nukes internally on your own civilian population, you're way too cool for school bro.

Nah, Erdogan is an idiot that religion might stop terrorists. He realized it's wrong, but it's far too late.

Yes, I am so really evil, thinking to nuke "my own people", bla bla bla.. (excellent straw man from you too, completely irrelevant)


But, my question stills the same:

Ok lets say Turkey get 60 billion more. What will it gonna do, but 3000 more aircraft? It has one of the largest armies in UN, but your argument is "Oh my God what if they buy weapons with the money?"...

You see I am ok with all your accusations of me being "Evil, satanic worshipper, terrorist child killer"..

At least you can accept your argument is hillarious :/

[Snowhobbit]

Nah, Erdogan is an idiot that religion might stop terrorists. He realized it's wrong, but it's far too late.

Yes, I am so really evil, thinking to nuke "my own people", bla bla bla.. (excellent straw man from you too, completely irrelevant)


But, my question stills the same:

Ok lets say Turkey get 60 billion more. What will it gonna do, but 3000 more aircraft? It has one of the largest armies in UN, but your argument is "Oh my God what if they buy weapons with the money?"...

You see I am ok with all your accusations of me being "Evil, satanic worshipper, terrorist child killer"..

At least you can accept your argument is hillarious :/

Kindly apply glasses and coffee and read the post again before attempting to explain. You are the one talking about using nukes on your own people, not me. Go go Turkey!

Yes, not killing children is very very amusing. It is hilarious!

[Yesugey]

Kindly apply glasses and coffee and read the post again before attempting to explain. You are the one talking about using nukes on your own people, not me. Go go Turkey!

Yes, not killing children is very very amusing. It is hilarious!

Nah... You see, I like realistic nationalism. "Other side kills children, bombs nukes to his people, oh how innocent and brave our side is.."

I like evil people more than people who acts evil but doesn't even realize.

I have to declare you won the argument, since you used "killing children, evil dictator, nuking own people" enough times. :D

[Fragony]

billions not millions, but Turkey's role is shady to say the least

[Gilrandir]

But I do believe that terrorism is a global problem and that it requires global cooperation to be stamped out as the threat it is today, worldwide.

Unless some parties to the process are interested in attacks to go on. And as Zhirinovsky admitted, Russia is the one which benefits from what terrorists do in Europe. Why should Russia wish to cooperate in putting an end to it? It would engage in lip service and smoke screens to try to bargain what it can.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The answer of course, is more unchecked immigration.

[Fragony]

Kinda freaky, in Belgium a guard of a nuclear plant was found murdered in his house and his security-pass was stolen. ( and is blocked now). You can't just blow up a nuclear powerplant, terrorist may be twisted but they are not that dumb. Anti-nuclear activists making the most out of the current situation perhaps? Gut says this has nothing to do with Brussels

edit, Gutt was right it seems, got to love instinct

[Brenus]

"And as Zhirinovsky admitted" And what is his official job in the Russian Government exactly? Probably a very important one as you always refer to him... Can you tell us?

[Gilrandir]

"And as Zhirinovsky admitted" And what is his official job in the Russian Government exactly? Probably a very important one as you always refer to him... Can you tell us?

He is a member of the State Council of Russian Federation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Council_(Russia)

The State Council considers issues of particular importance to the state, such as the development of governmental institutions, economic and social reforms and other objects affecting the public as a whole.

Moreover, he is the head of a faction in Duma.

However minute those positions may seem to you, Zhirinovsky is a very conspicuous figure in Russian politics. As I said, he voices ideas, which are too "radical" (to put it mildly), for the Kremlin to see how people would swallow them.

Anyway, it is worth tracing what he says. You never tire to bring up Svoboda, Azov (and their leaders) or the Le Pens and warn of the danger of nazism. Why don't you ever speak of their counterparts in Russia and play down their influence?

[Lizardo]

,.....

[Tuuvi]

So Charlie Hebdo published this piece on the Brussels bombing. Apparently not being able to criticize Muslims for practicing their religion is partially what led to the Brussels bombing. Which is pretty silly in my opinion, I don't see how telling a Muslim woman to her face that you don't like her veil is supposed to stop terrorists from blowing people up.

[Lizardo]

Oh the CHEEK!


What do you expect from Charlie Hebdo they were left high and dry by the media the media should of published the Charlie Hebdo cartoons on mass! I guees al the brave ones were killed in the terror attack.

[Papewaio]

So Charlie Hebdo published this piece on the Brussels bombing. Apparently not being able to criticize Muslims for practicing their religion is partially what led to the Brussels bombing. Which is pretty silly in my opinion, I don't see how telling a Muslim woman to her face that you don't like her veil is supposed to stop terrorists from blowing people up.

Well when we stopped Catholics from wearing a veil the IRA stopped blowing up people... /s

[Pannonian]

Well when we stopped Catholics from wearing a veil the IRA stopped blowing up people... /s

In Northern Ireland it tended to be the men who wore veils. And both sides wore it as a fashion accessory. They even painted murals of blokes wearing veils.

[Gilrandir]

In Northern Ireland it tended to be the men who wore veils. And both sides wore it as a fashion accessory. They even painted murals of blokes wearing veils.

See what happens in some parts of the UK if you allow men in other parts to wear skirts.

[Brenus]

"Apparently not being able to criticize Muslims for practicing their religion is partially what led to the Brussels bombing" Apparently we didn't read the same paper.
What is describe here is the slow process when honest and hard working people, without bad intentions, open the way to the terrorists (I disagree about Tarik Ramadan, but that is my opinion). The "meant no harm" thingy, well describes by T Pratchett, the "they got a point" sentence.
You can see it with the debate on the Burka or on the new Muslim "fashion". You can be against the bikini (for which no one was ever stoned to death because no wearing it) but you can't be against the burka (for which lot were stoned to death because no wearing it enough). The same who told you that it is only fashion so no big deal will happily claim someone racism and islamophobic (mixing two notions) if one is against it, adapting following the aim Burka being just a piece of cloth or a religious imperative.
This attitude (I summarized) lead to the silence about Islam, and gave the field to the ones who dare advertising the Islamic Bath Suit (Birkini) as the Modest one, meaning the ones not wearing it immodest. This silence allowed the most extremist to be seen as having a point, and the same who were enraged by the burning of a Koran are actually silent by the burning of the Christian Coptic holly books by the Islamic Fanatics of ISIL. They fear to be seen as Islamophobic.
What Charlie is describing is the fear induced by the fear to be accused of racism, bigotry and so on. It worked. No much in France, so France paid the price. But look how many attacks are directed to Charlie. Even if the journalists who were the soul of the satyric newspaper are dead, being the victims of the fanatic criminals, what left is actually under attack at every pretext.
And yes, Charlie attacks,and will attack all religions, because they are atheists.

[Lizardo]

But how! they backed down and basically accepted Islamic blasphemy laws they haven't drawn Mohammed since the attacks. Their picking on the wrong religion, 99.56% of terrorist suicide bomb attacks are commited by Muslims and justified by Islam. Did christians attack Charlie Hebdo? Why the attacks on christianity and judaism?

[Brenus]

"Did christians attack Charlie Hebdo?" Yes. Fire bombs.

"they backed down and basically accepted Islamic blasphemy laws they haven't drawn Mohammed since the attacks" First, the real Charlie is dead. In this, the terrorists have won. Fear is still there, but more importantly, the team who took over is not made from the same background of atheist militancy, anti-militarism, tree-hogger and Amnesty International and green-peace activists.
Most of the Charlie's critics when accusing the news-paper of racism had no little knowledge of them that they just charged to the wrong direction. It didn't matter really as the aim was to make the victims the responsible of their murders, and the killers just victims of misunderstandings. It worked.
Why attacks on Christianity and Judaism? Because they are religions. They are revealed truth and their Holly books are as well toxic, so are their teaching (gender inequality, fascination for death, insane symbolism, etc). These 2 other religions are as irrational than the 3rd one, are as potentially lethal, as History showed when they had the power to do so.
They are picking religions as ideologies, as irrational believes...

In French, but it is what all is about.
http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/Socie...-danger-939881

This woman is/was the companion of one of the journalist. Muslim background, Moroccan, and a in danger, heavily protected by the police because fanatics still want to kill her, because she doesn't submit. Not married and pregnant, not wearing the veil and talking, contesting, evil thinker she is.

[Lizardo]

The media hung 'em up to dry the European Media should've really published the cartoons on mass in defiance and solidarity, I guess the brave most outspoken employees died in the massacre, Europe will keep burying its head in the sand when it comes to Islam, keep importing country shopping migrants, Europe has been demoralised and it's just a matter of time until Western Europe and it's values are erased.

Second coming of Hitler when? lol

[Brenus]

"Second coming of Hitler when? lol" Not funny. However, for history sake!!!! Hitler allied with Muslims extremists as both were anti-Semitic. Muslims provide at least 3 SS divisions (Handchar (Bosnian/Croat), Kama (Bosnian/Croat), Skanderberg (Albanian), to which you can add the Free Arabian Legion.

[Gilrandir]

And yes, Charlie attacks,and will attack all religions, because they are atheists.

As the implementation of the tenets of "militant atheism" in the USSR shows, atheism =/= tolerance =/= violence-free. So atheism is not very different from other ideologies when it is put to practice on the state level.

[Brenus]

"As the implementation of the tenets of "militant atheism" in the USSR shows, atheism =/= tolerance =/= violence-free. So atheism is not very different from other ideologies when it is put to practice on the state level." Comparing a dying magazine to USSR
Atheism is not an ideology, by the way.
USSR was a dictatorship, so implemented the usual tools of dictatorship. I did remind you that more communists were killed than priests of all religions, so can we deduct from this USSR was anti-communist?
Stalin killing atheist/communist is the proof that Stalin was in fact a religious Eastern Christian fanatics killing Jews and atheists whereas protecting his own Church...

[Gilrandir]

"As the implementation of the tenets of "militant atheism" in the USSR shows, atheism =/= tolerance =/= violence-free. So atheism is not very different from other ideologies when it is put to practice on the state level." Comparing a dying magazine to USSR

I don't compare anything. I just want to say that ANY ideology when it becomes a guideline for a nation is likely to produce violence when the country is run by a totalitarian system. So there is no reason to be especially proud of being an atheist thinking that it is exempt from this rule of the thumb.

Atheism is not an ideology, by the way.

As militant atheism it was a part of communist ideology in the USSR.

USSR was a dictatorship, so implemented the usual tools of dictatorship. I did remind you that more communists were killed than priests of all religions, so can we deduct from this USSR was anti-communist?

Communists were never killed on the ground theat they were communists. On the contrary, they were killed because they were said to have betrayed the ideals of communism or their party or their people.
Priests were killed because they were priests who were instrumental in distributing "opium for the people". To say nothing of the destruction of churches which had great historical and cultural value.

[Brenus]

"Priests were killed because they were priests who were instrumental in distributing "opium for the people"" Nope. It was because they were part of a political system opposing the regime.
"As militant atheism it was a part of communist ideology in the USSR." Nope. Give me the Holly Book or a book specifically showing universally recognised tenets of atheism, a set of belief and rites, laws to follow to be at good atheist, rewards and punishments included, and then you can claim atheism to be a religion or a ideology. Until then...
Atheism is different to be Communist. It was an add-on, use as political tool to be used against the reactionary priests who sided for the Autocracy and was an active movement against the Regime.
"Communists were never killed on the ground threat they were communists" They were killed to be the wrong type of communist, to be as the Priest agent of reactionary movement against the regime.
You claim the Priest were killed because they were religious, but you deny your system of analyse to the Communists. So what the common part in the killing? Ah, yes, they were against the Regime. So, if the Regime can't qualify as anti-communist, it can't be qualify as anti-religious, so your claim that atheism has something to do with the killing (the Communists were atheist, most of them) is dismissed.The motive was not, as you pretend, because the Priests were part of the Opium dispensers (which, I remind you, is a wrong interpretation of Marx's meaning, as opium was seen by him -as shown in the full sentence- as pain killer), but like the first Communists, were parts of a political opposition to the regime.
So, you can try to drag again militant atheism (as you qualify it) as the same level than religions that actually order the killing of unfaithful, relapse, agnostics, atheists and others followers of others religions, you know you are wrong. Not that will prevent you to do so...

[Gilrandir]

"Priests were killed because they were priests who were instrumental in distributing "opium for the people"" Nope. It was because they were part of a political system opposing the regime.

Not neccessarily. In the first years of the Soviet regime religion (as well as other elements of the old regime) was considered to be useless and even dangerous system of beliefs that lied to people about their place and role in the world. That is why even the meekest priest could be killed just on the pretext he was an unneccessary element of the bygone times. Although (or perhaps therefore) there were priests that opposed the new regime and were killed for that.

"As militant atheism it was a part of communist ideology in the USSR." Nope. Give me the Holly Book or a book specifically showing universally recognised tenets of atheism, a set of belief and rites, laws to follow to be at good atheist, rewards and punishments included, and then you can claim atheism to be a religion or a ideology. Until then...
Atheism is different to be Communist. It was an add-on, use as political tool to be used against the reactionary priests who sided for the Autocracy and was an active movement against the Regime.

This is what I said - a PART of communist ideology. But used not only against the "guilty" priests. Starting from the kindergarten children were taught that there is no God and religion is deception. Is isn't it an kind of ideology if if is PROPAGATED OFFICIALLY? And as a part of communist ideology it was termed scientific atheism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxis..._atheism#Lenin

So, you can try to drag again militant atheism (as you qualify it) as the same level than religions that actually order the killing of unfaithful, relapse, agnostics, atheists and others followers of others religions, you know you are wrong.

http://portall.zp.ua/video/militant-...xteHtFTVx.html, where:

According to Harold J. Berman, a Harvard specialist in Soviet law, militant atheism was the official religion of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party was analagous to an established church. The goal of the Soviet Union was the liquidation of religion and the means to achieve this goal included the destruction of churches, mosques, synagogues, mandirs, madrasahs, religious monuments, as well the mass deportation to Siberia of believers of different religions. Under the Soviet doctrine of separation of church and state, detailed in the Constitution of the Soviet Union, churches in the Soviet Union were forbidden to give to the poor or carry on educational activities. They could not publish literature since all publishing was done by state agencies, although after World War II the Russian Orthodox Church was given the right to publish church calendars, a very limited number of Bibles, and a monthly journal in a limited number of copies. Churches were forbidden to hold any special meetings for children, youth or women, or any general meetings for religious study or recreation, or to open libraries or keep any books other than those necessary for the performance of worship services. Furthermore, under militant atheist policies, Church property was expropriated. Moreover, not only was religion banned from the school and university system, but pupils were to be indoctrinated with atheism and antireligious teachings. For example, schoolchildren were asked to convert family members to atheism and memorize antireligious rhymes, songs, and catechisms, while university students who declined to propagate atheism lost their scholarships and were expelled from universities. Severe criminal penalties were imposed for violation of these rules. By the 1960s, with the fourth Soviet anti-religious campaign underway, half of the amount of Russian Orthodox churches were closed, along with five out of the eight seminaries. In addition, several other Christian denominations were brought to extinction, including the Baptist Church, Methodist Church, Evangelical Christian Church, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Before the Russian Revolution, there were more than fifty thousand Russian Orthodox clergymen, by 1939, there were no more than three to four hundred left. In the year 1922 alone, under the militant atheistic system, 2691 secular priests, 1962 monks and 3447 nuns were martyred for their faith. According to Rudolph Joseph Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, 61,000,000 people were killed under the Communism of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Due to the militant atheistic campaigns against Judaism, the religion was inaccessible to its followers; most Soviet Jews focused on a national identity, which fueled a mass dissident movement. Marxist-Leninist militant atheism resulted in the administrative elimination of the clergy, the housing of atheist museums where churches had once stood, the sending of many religious people to prisons and concentration camps, a continuous stream of propaganda, and the imposing of atheism through education (and forced re-education through torture at various prisons). Specifically, by 1941, 40,000 Christian churches and 25,000 Muslim mosques had been closed down and converted into schools, cinemas, clubs, warehouses and grain stores, or Museums of Scientific Atheism.

And also in:
http://tubethe.com/watch/kaIoNe5SOFU...communism.html

[Brenus]

"According to Harold J. Berman, a Harvard specialist in Soviet law, militant atheism was the official religion of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party was analagous to an established church": So, I will disagree with this specialist, as his base is just utterly wrong, as atheism is not religion. Atheism does not link a creature and a creator, and in order to back-up his claim, he is obliged creating a equivalence between a Political Party and a Church. Still missing the Holy books, mind you.
By the way, the text you provide is not a proof, just the opinion on why the Churches were destroyed and Religions banned, not facts. The persistent use of vocabulary such as"militant atheism" and "indoctrinated (not educated, indoctrinated) with atheism and antireligious teachings" give you a clue of the why.
It is as usual fraud by association. From Michael Sherlock: "False Analogy Fallacy:
This fallacy depends upon the existence of an often minor analogous factor, in this case, the belief in god versus a lack of belief in god, god being the analogous component, and extrapolating from this minor analogy, conditions that are alleged to affect both positions, when the truth of the matter happens to be, the two (religion and atheism) are not analogous at all.
For apologists to overcome the existence of this fallacy, they must show that atheism is a religion, but the very definition of atheism circumvents any such attempt. Atheism, although encompassing varying degrees of disbelief, is not a system of beliefs, but an unsystematic absence of god-belief, that is all. It has no doctrines, traditions and most importantly, no beliefs. Unless there is some secret atheist bible from which Stalin drew inspiration for his crimes, there is absolutely no reason to suggest that his lack of belief in a supernatural deity had anything to do with his messianic and maniacal behaviour."
He said it better than I do.

"In the first years of the Soviet regime religion (as well as other elements of the old regime) was considered to be useless and even dangerous system of beliefs that lied to people about their place and role in the world." Agree with this. All useless and opponents were killed, so nothing to do with religions, but "just" usual tools of oppressors and dictators... Killing the useless was unfortunately not only in Communist and Nazi ideologies, eugenic did took its toll as well, including the political ones.

"Part of the ideology": Even so, the author decided that the oppressive part of the regime, the fact that Churches are objectives political enemies of the regime are pushed away without too much trouble. His motives are his, not to me to dwell in them.

In the text you linked, you have one sentence which in fact tells it all: "Since religion was the ideological tool that kept the system in place, Lenin believed atheistic propaganda to be of critical necessity." Not because Lenin was atheist, but because religions were not only tools but part of the threats against the regime. And to be fair, he was quite right on this assessment.

"Is isn't it an kind of ideology if if is PROPAGATED OFFICIALLY?" So is history which is part of how to built a National Identity. However, none will pretend that history is the equivalent of a religion or an ideology (of course, history is part of an ideology). Even if teachers, schools and books might offer similarities.... Sorry, can't resist.

[Gilrandir]

So, I will disagree with this specialist, as his base is just utterly wrong, as atheism is not religion.

With all due respect to you as a layman in this sphere, I would side with the specialist on the issue.

For once you missed his point: atheism was FUNCTIONING like a religion in the USSR, so I'll venture to post an excerpt again:

According to Harold J. Berman, a Harvard specialist in Soviet law, militant atheism was the official religion of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party was analagous to an established church.

Then, I believe Berman has more awareness of the subject and I doubt if you have read much of what Lenin said about religion.

Still missing the Holy books, mind you.

The function of those was performed by the works of Marx/Engels/Lenin. They were considered to be the ultimate authority when you wanted to prove something (much as the Bible is for Christians). You know, ALL the dissertations defended in the USSR were to contain quotations from Lenin (can't wager on the other two) and the works by Lenin were to be given first in the list of references. Citing Lenin looked especially ridiculous for dissertations in physics or chemistry and the lists of references in all dissertations looked very bizarre, since they were given not in alphabetical order, but started with L (Lenin's works) and they came those with A through Z (in Russian from A to Я).

By the way, the text you provide is not a proof, just the opinion on why the Churches were destroyed and Religions banned, not facts. The persistent use of vocabulary such as"militant atheism" and "indoctrinated (not educated, indoctrinated) with atheism and antireligious teachings" give you a clue of the why.

You are fully entitled to your opinion, but I fully agree with the one expressed in the links.

However, none will pretend that history is the equivalent of a religion or an ideology (of course, history is part of an ideology).

And religion/atheism as well.


Can't find a video, only a series of photos: people laying flowers to Lenin's monument and some of them were crossing themselves (the woman and the man on pictures where their hands are blurred from rapid movements):
http://ulpressa.ru/2016/01/21/snimal...ku-v-i-lenina/

It is not the USSR, it is modern Russia, but seeing the age of worshippers it is easy to assume they are the indomitable survivors of the Soviet regime.

This is to show how similar to religion the Soviet ideology has become.

[Brenus]

"Then, I believe Berman has more awareness of the subject and I doubt if you have read much of what Lenin said about religion." You believe what you want indeed...
But when a specialist is so obviously wrong, I can't stop to think he is completely wrong.
Note that he didn't, at any moment, even try prove his point. Pre-supposed, then after showing "facts" and used of vocabulary to re-enforce his "facts" as in "for example, schoolchildren were asked to convert family members to atheism". Convert. Not convince, by a religious term of convert. "militant atheism was the official religion" is what he wrote, doesn't leave a lot to interpretation and then, as said, he tried to backed it up in implicating the Communist party as Church...
"Can't find a video, only a series of photos: people laying flowers to Lenin's monument and some of them were crossing themselves (the woman and the man on pictures where their hands are blurred from rapid movements)" So are the parades to commemorate all events... Check for 11/11 and others tragedies...
"This is to show how similar to religion the Soviet ideology has become" It just show how far you ready to push to try to back-up your argument...

[Gilrandir]

You believe what you want indeed...
But when a specialist is so obviously wrong, I can't stop to think he is completely wrong.
Note that he didn't, at any moment, even try prove his point. Pre-supposed, then after showing "facts" and used of vocabulary to re-enforce his "facts" as in "for example, schoolchildren were asked to convert family members to atheism". Convert. Not convince, by a religious term of convert. "militant atheism was the official religion" is what he wrote, doesn't leave a lot to interpretation and then, as said, he tried to backed it up in implicating the Communist party as Church...

You are misinterpreting what he said. But I will not say (as is your wont): You don't have a clue.

Don't you think that the short piece by Berman I linked to is not the only work of his on the subject? I believe he has more arguments to offer if you want any. As for the term militant atheism which you seem to hear for the first time, it was not his coinage. It has been in use since the revolution of 1917, although in the late USSR it was dropped for scientific atheism as it seemed too violent for "the peaceful policies and methods" of the then Soviet Union.

So, I trust more to those who have studied the subject more deeply and systematically and to my awareness of the subject as a person who lived in the USSR for 20 years than to the opinion of a "random guy on the internet" (don't remember whose quote it is).

"Can't find a video, only a series of photos: people laying flowers to Lenin's monument and some of them were crossing themselves (the woman and the man on pictures where their hands are blurred from rapid movements)" So are the parades to commemorate all events...

Not in the case of Lenin who fought religion and church being the head of the Soviet state. It is as incompatible as giving a nazi salute at a commemoration of holocaust victims.