Saturday, March 07, 2015 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

Assyria, Israel, and new Greek blackmail

A few comments on three political stories.

The destruction of the Assyrian culture has accelerated.

These Allah's savages replaced sledgehammers with bulldozers as they are liquidating an Assyrian jewel of a town, Nimrud. UNESCO talks about war crimes. Czech archaeologists are shocked and say that by its intensity, this destruction is unprecedented even though the very concept of "liquidation of other nations' cultures" isn't a new concept in the history of the mankind. However, one of them talked about a silver lining: Nimrud has lots of heritage beneath the ground and it is not within the abilities of the Islamist scum to liquidate most of it. I hope he is right.

Another story, the Iran-Israel tension and Bibi's speech.

A few days ago, Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave his 45-minute address to the U.S. Congress. I found the speech very convincing and impressive. He is a great speaker and his English is more authentic than the English of any continental European leader. His deep voice helps to solidify his credentials of a leader. But if was especially the content that seemed unassailable.




He spent some time by praising the U.S.-Israeli relationships that go beyond partisan politics – even though numerous Democrats were absent. He has praised Obama's help to Israel as well. We heard that it's composed of aid that is well-known, aid that is not well-known, and aid that has to remain classified. As far as I could see, none of the things that Netanyahu said could have been interpreted as a criticism of Obama in person.




However, he criticized the bad deal that the U.S. wants to sign with Iran. There were lots of references to the history, the Bible, and so on. Iran and ISIS are two equivalent competing branches of the radical Islam. They only differ in the opinion who will rule the great Islamist empire. The intrinsic differences between them are small, we heard. Iran calls itself the "Islamic Republic" while ISIS is the "Islamic State"; ISIS loves to post things to YouTube while Iran prefers Twitter. ;-)

OK, I have probably improved this joke by Netanyahu a little bit (the previous sentence was a variation of the joke that the difference between Stalin and Hitler is that Stalin had 5-year plans while Hitler had 4-year plans.). But he did refer to a November 2014 tweet by the Iranian mullah-in-chief, comrade Khamenei, with the detailed 9-point plan to "eliminate" Israel (TRF blog post). Well, I would keep on thinking that Iran still has much more stuff that is connected with an ordinary, decent functional "country" than the ISIS but yes, the analogies are intense, too.

The U.S.-Iran deal which is being prepared by Obama and which would end the sanctions etc. is bad because it allows Iran to destabilize the region and help terrorists across the world; allows Iran to keep its centrifuges that may create a bomb within a year or less, depending on estimates; this plan really isn't a plan to prevent Iran from getting the bomb but rather a pretty good schedule for Iran to follow if it wants to get the bomb; the deal is bad because in 10 years, Iran may do anything anyway and 10 years is a short time in the life of a nation (and even an individual).

The lawmakers greeted Netanyahu as a hero. On the other hand, Obama wasn't there and responded by these two minutes of unemotional talk. He wasn't attending because of some lame excuse related to Ukraine. He didn't even watch the full Netanyahu speech on YouTube as 200,000 of us did. He only saw the transcript and Obama says that the speech contained no alternatives to his deal.

Now, this is complete bullšit, Mr Obama. Netanyahu's speech was full of detailed entries that should have been in a better deal as well as explanations why Iran is going to feel the pressure to agree with the deal; and why if that won't happen, no deal is still better than the deal that is being prepared by Obama. I believe that those of us who have actually watched Netanyahu's speech will agree that Obama's comment that it had no alternative to Obama's prepared deal is a plain dirty lie.

The Israel-U.S. relationships seem full of contradictions these days. On one hand, we see these comments about the special tight and eternal relationships and love and the hero's welcome of the prime minister in the U.S. Congress. Obama pays lip service to this relationship – although very calmly – too. On the other hand, Obama doesn't even watch this important speech by the most important leader of this hypothetical #1 ally – not even its recorded videos. And he dismisses it with four words or so, "there is no alternative".

I don't know what "classified help" Obama has provided to Israel and whether these comments are true at all, or just a trick for Netanyahu to make the relationships look healthier than they are. But the relationships don't look healthy to me at all. It seems clear to me that Obama is much more willing to have great relationships with the leaders of Iran than with the leaders of Israel.

Thankfully, the guy in the Nobel prize committee who was most responsible for the painful Nobel prizes for Obama and for the EU (but no longer for the Pachauri+Gore prize...) has been at least demoted – the first such demotion in the Nobel prize history.

Greek blackmail involving Islamists

Nikolaos Kotzias, the current foreign minister of Greece (independent, former communist, nominated by Syriza) has revealed a new "ace". I believe that it is the same "ace" that Tsipras claimed to have possessed that will force others to pour hundreds of new billions of euros to the country in between Europe and the Middle East.

We learned that if the ransom isn't paid to the Greek Marxist scum and Greece finds itself unable to perform certain functions, Greece will flood Europe with "thousands of jihadists and millions of Islamist immigrants" (the Czech media are full of this story).

That's a cute and friendly blackmail – as far as I can say, the communist aßhole should be assassinated immediately just for suggesting something like that – but it doesn't work in this way. The borders between Greece and the EU are opened because Greece is a functional member. It's Greece's responsibility – and we officially believe that it's in Greece's interests – to protect its own border which is the current EU border from "thousands of jihadists and millions of Islamic immigrants".

Of course that if and when Greece fails to play the role, the effective border will move closer to Berlin, so to say. The transition of the people between Greece and the EU will no longer be free. If Greece became a full-fledged failed state, I think that even the most Eurofanatical people in Brussels would understand that such Greece must be immediately removed from the Schengen zone.

After all, this "linkage of Greeks to the Islamists" has a moral dimension, too. If Greece were really using Islamists as a weapon, we should treat Greece as a bunch of allies of the Islamists. They would deserve a similar kind of a treatment, perhaps one including bombardment of the Greek territory. At any rate, it's amazing how deeply the cradle of the Western civilization has dropped thanks to the four decades of economic and moral devastation by the left-wing governments.

Thousands of years ago, the Greek heroes would defeat the Persians and similar stuff. Our beloved history teacher at the basic school would describe the beginning of the Greco-Persian wars as follows: "There are so many of us," the Persians would say, "that we are able to shield the solar radiation." – "That is great," the Greek heroes responded, "because we love to fight in the shadow!"

And what do we get now? A bunch of losers who can neither produce anything nor fight and who are blackmailing Europe with their Islamist friends. It's pathetic, Greece.

I must say that it's so pathetic partly because Europe doesn't view itself as one empire. Its citizens don't really want to protect such an empire and its size. We don't really think about the world's territory as being sharply divided to the "territory inside the EU" and the "territory outside the EU". Whether someone is "like us" is a continuous function that is decreasing somewhere along the "fuzzy borders". For example, my identity is primarily 1) Czech, then 2) Pilsner, then 3) Slavic, then 4) Central European, 5) Western European, 6) Eastern European (post-socialist European), 7) former Czech American, and only much lower in this list, you will find things like the "EU citizen". ;-)

If Greece were Texas and it would blackmail the politicians in the D.C. by claiming that it can make the U.S. smaller and weaker and flood the smaller U.S. with Mexican illegals, perhaps that would be a sufficient reason to flood Greece/Texas with hundreds of billions of euros/dollars. The Americans think about themselves as if they are primarily Americans. But the Europeans don't. Europe is primarily a geographical (in some sense, I want to say "geological") entity without immediate human emotions and the European Union is just an artificial heterogeneous construct. Everyone in Central Europe knows that the people in Greece (and elsewhere) are "different" in many respects.

Greece has been an EU member while Turkey has not but we realize that the difference between those two is comparable to, and perhaps smaller than, the Greek-German difference, for example. So by moving the borders of the EU or the Eurozone or the Schengen zone etc. closer to Berlin, we're not really "losing anything". We are just drawing some boundaries that discretely approximate the existing continuous differences between nations and territories. After all, the EU, the Eurozone, and the Schengen zone have grown their territory many times in the recent decades (and Czechia+Slovakia are "relatively recent" additions – or, more precisely, returned kids – to the family of European nations). So why could't we see a change in the opposite direction, at least once?

And do we care whether the "total territory controlled by the Western civilization" shrinks? I do care but I am not sure whether Greece as we knew it in recent decades – and especially the Greece represented by Syriza today – should be counted as a part of the Western civilization. I don't have a clear opinion on whether this communist mess is better or worse than what we see in some countries with lots of Islam. It's probably worse than what they have in some moderate Islamic nations: a moderate Muslim who understands that he must only spend what he earns is probably better than a Greek communist parasite.

And if Greece got filled with lots of Islamists, would it be a threat for other European nations?

First of all, I don't believe that the Greeks would really easily accept the occupation of their country by lots of Islamists etc.; and I don't believe that NATO would allow its member Greece to be turned into an Islamic stronghold. But even if that happened (and perhaps even if Greece left NATO – and I don't think this is even considered because NATO is independent of the EU and financial issues), there would still be lots of room for the European nations to defend themselves against this time bomb waiting in Greece. After all, I would say that the European nations are largely failing to fight against the radical Islam and especially against excessive Islamic immigration even on the "EU proper" territory. Of course that if people agreed that there's a visible threat coming from Greece, more anti-immigration parties would gradually take over the political systems (or the existing ones would move to the "right") and a more assertive fight against this threat could begin.

It isn't even easy for Greece to "acquire" the millions of Islamic immigrants (that Mr Kotzias would need to actually make his point) – Greece doesn't have any land-based border with the Muslim world – which is why the attempt to mix Greece's financial problems with its hypothetical geopolitical importance is silly.

So Comrade Kotzias, you are just a pathetic clown. You are still wasting tons of money for ludicrous things that the Syriza program is composed of. But if you're forced to live for your own money, you will suddenly see what is important and what is not. People will care about their own survival and the nation as a whole will care about its being completely overtaken or not overtaken by someone else. You will suddenly see that the fourteenth salaries for redundant government employees or the ban on privatization, not to mention hundreds of other sick communist policies, won't be too important. You will see that there's still a lot of room that is compatible with the survival. Greece has to go through this experience. There is no other way for it to be cured.

Add to del.icio.us Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (31) :


reader Giotis said...

Greeks successfully defend European borders for over 3000 years now and they will continue to do so…

The one time they failed against the Turks was
due to the fact that the beloved Byzantine empire was weaken earlier by the attacks of the crusaders scum.


reader cynholt said...

I wonder whether this whole brouhaha of a supposed rift between Nuttin' Yahoo and O'bomber isn't just a concocted story to divert attention from something else, or maybe to allow the tuned-in segment of the US to vent some spleen about the complete idiocy of this "Special Relationship" (in which Israel dictates and America takes dictation). I don't for a minute believe this "Special Relationship" or the US's guaranteed UN veto is in any danger over this.


reader LM said...

You're a right minded and credulous guy Mr Motl


reader lukelea said...

"However, one of them talked about a silver lining: Nimrud has lots of heritage beneath the ground and it is not within the abilities of the Islamist scum to liquidate most of it."

For those interested in the origins of civilization the problem all over the Middle East is that the most revealing sites are at the bottom of the tells, while it is the upper levels that Middle Eastern governments are most interested in preserving. Makes digging hard.


reader cynholt said...

Hillary may become the first female president, only in the sense that Barack Obama became the first African American president.

And for those that are transfixed on symbols, that's all that's important. Maybe it's because they realize the it doesn't really matter who we vote for, because they will only offer cosmetic change.

Eloquent lies are still lies, delusion does not become sanity in the absence of the real.

I am so sick and tired of seeing the same old carcasses of politicians who have brought our country to ruination. They have nothing to offer but more of the same.


reader Ann said...

To me Obama is a wrecking ball moving along through our institutions and culture with his policy agenda, my umbrella term for all of it at this point is ObamaScare. I hope the Senate can defeat his awful deal with Iran. It was a ridiculous tantrum for him not to meet with Netanyahu, the reaction of a shallow narcissist.


reader Ann said...

I don't get why people think Hillary has any chance. She could not roll a rooky Senator 8 years ago when she was more in her prime. The email scandal is bad, she lacks charisma which seems to matter so much nowadays. She's an old political grind. If Marco Rubio runs on the elephant ticket, the Latin vote will not go to Hillary. The donkeys better come up with someone besides Hillary or Biden (who does not seem mentally intact at all times, I'm serious.) And Elizabeth Warren is too much of a witchy zealot to win beyond VT, MA and maybe CA.


reader Shannon said...

I agree with you, Cynthia ;-). All these are only petty personal conflicts. Whether it is Netanyahu or any other leader, Israel will always get their weaponry and money (their only soothers). Netanyahu is like a spoiled child who once again comes to this mum crying and stamping. Must be hard on his image to be treated as persona non grata by a black guy (whose ancestors used to be his ancestors' slaves ;-). Maybe this is when Obama is enjoying this comedy.


reader Gordon said...

I totally agree. Also, his and Kerry's negotiations with Iran remind me of Neville Chamberlain. Obviously Iran has lied about its motives and violated all past "agreements" and will continue to do so. The Obama push is to get an agreement before the end of his term and for American strategic oil interests. What the US needs is a Winston Churchill calibre leader, or even a democratic Vladimir Putin, not some Quisling pushover.


reader Gordon said...

But Elizabeth has guts and says what is on her mind.


reader Gordon said...

Cynthia, the US has a "special relationship" with Saudi Arabia as well ( to the point of flying 100 or so of Saudis out of the US when all planes were grounded after 9/11), a medieval tribal monarchy that embodies all the horrors of fundamental Islam. The Old Testament is full of horrors as well, but only totally bat-shit crazy Christians believe these parts, and laws keep them from acting on them. Wahabist Sharia law enshrines these barbaric acts.
This does not excuse Israel's actions in, say, Gaza or their own Jewish ultra-orthodox fruitbats, but things are slightly different when your neighbors have vowed to exterminate you.


reader Gordon said...

Of course you do, Shannon, and she didn't even need to even use the word, "Jew" to get your attention.


reader Shannon said...

Gordon, Catholicism is based on the New Testament. The Old one is for the jews, sorry about that. Read this and you will learn something : http://www.gotquestions.org/difference-old-new-testaments.html


reader Shannon said...

Dear Gordon, I like you but you are one pedantic mf ;-)


reader Gene Day said...

Aside from the fact that the US and Iran are allies fighting together in Iraq there are real differences between Iran and ISIS. I know several people who have travelled to Iran quite safely and had a good time there but anyone going into ISIS territory is either joining them or doomed to die a horrible death.
Due to the 2003 war and its consequences approximately one million Iranians have moved into Iraq. There is no way to know how many of them are military but they have succeeded in turning the Iraq army into a relatively effective fighting force. They will succeed in retaking Tikrit and will proceed from there to retake more ISIS territory. ISIS does have lots of Humvees and other American military supplies that were abandoned earlier by the Iraq army but they are lacking spare parts and logistical supply. These American military items are quickly becoming useless to ISIS.
We are also playing a role in various ways, which, by the way, does not include direct air support of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Iran. We cannot afford to be seen as taking sides in the Shiite-Sunny schism.
We do have around four thousand “advisors” in Iraq and we are doing many things to cut off the ISIS money supply. ISIS is on the defensive but no one knows the final act of this play.


reader davideisenstadt said...

well, as we know, before mary was pregnant (and while she was) she had a little jew in her...maybe thats what shannon needs too?


reader Shannon said...

Ah? So I am not anti-Semite then ?


reader davideisenstadt said...

If you mean do I think you have an unreasoning hatred and dislike for jews, yes, I think you do. Whether this is the result of envy, ignorance, or learned hate...i dont know.
Your posts are those of an antizionist, an apologist for others who hate, a sycophant when it comes the the islamic people in your midst, a quisling,


reader Tony said...

Yours seems to be turning into one of those "the more she refuses him, the more he wants to impregnate her" kind of relationships.


reader Ann said...

Yes, the Dalai Lama snub was puerile. Guts? Seriously? Warren finagled her way into the Ivy League with her faux Native American credentials. Auntie Somebody around the dinner table said they had Indian blood. You know what? I might have a touch of Cherokee in my background and I would never have checked boxes on college forms bcz of that. For all her anti-capitalist ire she worked on big corporate law cases in her past. While she was campaigning for Senate, she and an entourage (bodyguards?) had dinner at one of our favorite local fish restaurants. We showed up that night and were told no booths available bcz Elizabeth Warren was having dinner there. All the booths were somehow taken, so we got a table in a more remote spot. I'm fine with that, only, Liz, stop pretending you are just folks looking out for folks, you are an elitist, power-hungry hypocritical politician like the rest, Are you jerking my chain, Gordon? : )


reader Gordon said...

No need to be sorry-- both testaments are tribal "just so" stories, and, as far as I know, the Old Testament is for all Christians, Jews, and even Arabs--the Abrahamic religions. I find all organized religions almost equally odious (thats almost) and equally delusional with Islam currently in the lead.


reader Gordon said...

Nah, just an everyday polymath genius.


reader Gordon said...

Yes a bit--the Native schtick was really something, wasn't it?
Yes, she is an elitist power-hungry politician, but the adjectives are redundant, aren't they? Politician usually sums it up. I like SOME of the concerns she is raising, but her motives are suspect... a twist on a joke about lawyers--"How can you tell if a politician is lying?...His/her mouth is moving."


reader Gordon said...

Yeah, Harvard law professors really care about the 99%...look at Hillary, for example.


reader Gene Day said...

Hillary does not seem to have any competition among the Democrats this time so, if she wants it, she’ll get the nomination. Current polls give her a significant lead against any of the Republican contenders, Ann, so it’s premature to count her out.
However, it’s twenty months until the election and half that would be an eternity.
I, too, would like to see some younger blood in the race and the Republicans have plenty of it. It’s going to be great theater!


reader Gene Day said...

Rapprochement with Iran is pretty much unavoidable, Ann, regardless of domestic politics in either country. We just have too many common interests for it to be otherwise. That does not mean that we like each other and it does not mean that we approve of Iran’s government, which were most certainly do not.
John Foster dulles correctly stated that nations do not have friends; they have interests. Our interest in the mid-east is to achieve a relatively stable balance of the three main powers there, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran. None of them like each other but that is the nature of the world we live in.


reader Ann said...

What does that mean? They build nukes? Do you think that leads to other nations in the mideast building them as well? Should we believe the public statements about desire to annihilate Israel? I know some really nice Iranians in U.S. and they hate Iran government. There is a non-Islamic heritage there that has been suppressed. The Shah was not perfect, but seems like Iran got a really bad deal in exchange. I hope world avoids nukes going off in or near mideast (or elsewhere). Netanyahu laid out lots of specifics about what is better and worse dealing with Iran, Obama has said so little on this issue and i don't think he has talent as a negotiator anyway, so I fear he will paint us into a corner that we will regret, maybe after he is not POTUS.


reader Shannon said...

Ah? So now you say the Old Testament is for Jews and Arabs too ? You are improving Gordon. Keep at it ;-). I find atheism equally odious and leads to result such as communism.


reader Shannon said...

Haha! Indeed.


reader cynholt said...

Warren is an extraordinary figure, IMO. Many here don’t like her because she is not, conservative enough, in a mainstream sort of way. She is a moderate Republican. The difference between her and most of the other politicians is that she is not a servant of the rich, but someone interested in a return to a Republic where rule-of-law and an ordered society based on traditional civic virtues can be instituted for the benefit of most of the people. Today, because both parties along with nearly all levels of government, the private sector, and even NGOs are deeply corrupt, she appears to be a radical. She is a moderate and everyone else is a radical! Both political parties in one way or the other advocate an Imperial regime throughout the world that is ruled, not by democratically-oriented societies, but by feudal lords and ladies. We are at the outskirts right now of a full-fledged neo-feudal world and, in fact, we may be into that territory already and whether you like her or not, Liz Warren is one of the only major political figures who is standing against the flow.


reader cynholt said...

It would be wonderful if Hillary would self-destruct before primary season begins. Then there would be a slim chance of having choices. But with her lock on the Democratic party queenmakers and donors, that's unlikely to happen.

More likely, Hillary will self-destruct during the election, taking the Democratic Party down with her. Democrats are already nothing more than a money laundering operation, designed to further the interests of the uber-wealthy. Hillary's candidacy exposes their hollowness for all to see.

A lot of Democrats will be sitting 2016 out. And there will be no groundswell of new voters. Which of the evils is less evil is no longer discernible.