European links
Europe has been surprisingly firm against Russian adventurism.
The French President is publicly annoyed that the Czech President will not fly the EU flag from his castle.
Hoping Obama will not be like Blair.
The current Miss England is apparently “too chunky” to work as a model.
The apparently desperate (and expensive) need to control children’ ( Read more... )
The French President is publicly annoyed that the Czech President will not fly the EU flag from his castle.
Hoping Obama will not be like Blair.
The current Miss England is apparently “too chunky” to work as a model.
The apparently desperate (and expensive) need to control children’ ( Read more... )
It's not necessarily "weak hypocrisy." It just often is. It is, most definitely, at least "hypocrisy," given that France and Germany saw no problem with propping up tyrants in the first place, then complained on "moral" grounds when we acted to take them down.
The Greek riots are, I had thought, fairly obviously not about the death of that kid. That is the cause, not the reason. My opinion is that quite a lot of the violence is in reaction to how the Greek authorities would break out the tear gas and batons for indiscriminate carnage (like how Jordan179 would like to see), if they were competent enough.
"Quite a lot of the violence is in reaction to how the Greek authorities would break out the tear gas and batons for indiscriminate carnage ... if they were competent enough."
Try repeating that phrase in understandable, logically-grammatical English, and I'll tell you whether or not I think it's a plausible hypothesis. It seems to me that you're saying that the rioters are trying to punish the authorities for "breaking out the tear gas and batons" in some alternate universe, which doesn't make any sense.
Oh, and I'm not in favor of "indiscriminate carnage." Furthermore, how do you wreak "carnage" with "tear gas and batons," the first of which is an almost wholly non-lethal are weapon and the second of which is a usually non-lethal precision weapon. Wouldn't machineguns and mortars be a more normal instrument with which to wreak "indiscriminate carnage?"
I suspect that you just see "tear gas and batons" as a piece of boilerplate to rivet into your sentence as short-hand for "State brutality," it never entering your head that, actually, "tear gas and batons" are more commonly used by States trying to put down riots without killing too many people.
Oh, and while we're at it, do you think that the Greek policy of avoiding interference with the rioters has worked? What about the pain and suffering of those harmed by the rioters? The people who are losing their businesses or jobs because of the damage they're doing? The fact that, largely because of the Greek government's inaction, the riots have continued for weeks where they might have been put down in hours (when they started) or days (a bit later)?
Cowardice has consequences. Even when it pretends to be humaneness.
Reply
Projecting much? Oh, wait, you wouldn't let anyone but yourselves take down your pet tyrants. So, no morals in evidence there.
The statement in question is setting up a logical relationship:
"A is in reaction to B", where A is "Quite a lot of the violence", and B is the remainder of the sentence.
"violence" is qualified because, of course some of the violence is because there are people who are taking the opportunity for some random violence just because they can.
As for B, this subclause describes a situation which might be better stated as "the Greek authorities are not even competent enough to be totalitarian thugs, even though it is widely known that they (the authorities) would like to."
This makes it a compound subclause, where the Greek authorities suffer from two serious deficits in the eyes of its people:
i. they desire to be totalitarian thugs over the populace, and
ii. they're not even competent enough to get that right.
It is a complicated sentence, though. I'll grant you that. Next week, I'll tutor you in college-level English comprehension.
The "Indiscriminate carnage" is what I think the people of Greece fear of their government ... if it were competent enough. (From the socialists and from the right.)
And yes, I do see "Teargas and batons" as a failure of civilisation. I also think that if teargas and batons really are the best and only option, then you have other problems and have let them fester for far too long. Kind of like in Greece.
And no, the policy of avoiding the rioters has not "worked", except insofar as your plan of sending in the shock troops would intensify the riots to the point of possible civil war. What I think is that by the time it got to riots in the streets, the time to do something about stopping them is five years or more past.
And there is a difference between cowardice and "choosing not to charge in half-cocked like Jordan179 keeps telling you to".
Reply
Projecting much?
Not at all. France, Germany and Russia were Saddam's main supporters. Particularly after 1991.
As for B, this subclause describes a situation which might be better stated as "the Greek authorities are not even competent enough to be totalitarian thugs, even though it is widely known that they (the authorities) would like to."
Ah. But it is obvious that the Greek authorities are not trying to be totalitarian thugs, since they are doing none of the things associated with totalitarianism, such as violently suppressing dissent, prohibiting opposition parties, etc. Thus, your statement is tantamount to arguing that the Greek rioters are crazy.
It is most certainly true that there was an authoritarian (not totalitarian) Greek regime in the early 1970's, which did violently suppress dissent. But this is not the current regime -- Greece has been a liberal democracy for a quarter century now.
Are you trying to argue that the Greek rioters are so stupid that they didn't notice the fall of the military dictatorship?
This makes it a compound subclause, where the Greek authorities suffer from two serious deficits in the eyes of its people:
i. they desire to be totalitarian thugs over the populace, and
ii. they're not even competent enough to get that right.
But this sentence makes no sense in connection with the political realities of Greece, which is why I didn't think that this was what you meant. Is your opinion of the Greek rioters really that low? They would have to be stupid, or paranoid, to believe this.
Furthermore, what makes you think that the rioters are supported by the "populace?" I have seen no evidence from Greece that the riots are anything more than elite Greek youth having fun by beating up lower-class Greeks and destroying their property. The anger of the Greek populace toward the government seems to be based on the government's passivity in the face of the riots, not its supposed totalitarian intentions.
And yes, I do see "Teargas and batons" as a failure of civilisation.
How would you put down a riot without using "teargas and batons?" All the alternatives impress me as far more bloody.
Are you arguing that a riot is a "failure of civilization?" But all a riot needs is a small violent minority willing to riot: every country on Earth has such a small violent minority. The way you prevent riots from happening, and from spreading, is to let it be known that riots will be put down when they break out (so that the would-be rioters face injuries and prison rather than some fun beating up poor people and trashing their stuff), and to actually put the riots down when they break out.
Putting the riots down implies "teargas and batons," and you've notably failed to suggest better options.
And no, the policy of avoiding the rioters has not "worked", except insofar as your plan of sending in the shock troops would intensify the riots to the point of possible civil war.
It, of course, couldn't stop the riots, because ...?
(your answer, to be respected, will have to take into account that very many riots have historically been put down by "sending in the shock troops," and explain why this riot is different).
IMO, it couldn't start a "civil war," because the anarchists are insufficiently determined. I see no evidence that this riot isn't simply about "it's fun to beat up people not like us and trash their stuff," as most riots are. Furthermore, the danger of starting a "civil war" is intensified the longer that one lets the riots go on, since it increases the sense of power on the part of the rioters, encouraging them to hope that this really is the start of a revolution.
What I think is that by the time it got to riots in the streets, the time to do something about stopping them is five years or more past.
What happened 5+ years ago that caused this riot, in your opinion?
Reply
Nothing. No adequate response to changing circumstances, no acts of inclusion, or attempts to redress growing grievances - real or perceived.
Nothing to prevent the widespread perception that the police were being infiltrated by fascists who were deliberately increasing the viciousness of responses to civil (and criminal) problems; nothing to root out any actual such infiltration, nothing to demonstrate that there was none in the first place.
As for the "it's just anarchists who need a good slapping" theory, the Greeks themselves disagree with your learned opinion.
Sympathizers occupied the Greek consulates in Berlin and London, anarchists rioted out of solidarity in Barcelona, Rome and Copenhagen, and the sense of outrage has even reached New York.
Hardly looks like opportunistic skinheads and anarchists... to do such things so far away from the main action would indicate to me that they are deeply upset and that this is not an ordinary "burn the fucker down" riot, but something based on more serious grievances.
Don't forget, also, that Greece had a civil war, in living memory. They have a far more visceral and immediate knowledge of what a Civil War looks like, where it comes from, and what it means, than you ever will, barring that you go and participate in one yourself. And they are saying that it is getting to near that point.
Reply
Nothing. No adequate response to changing circumstances, no acts of inclusion ...
To what does "changing circumstances" refer, and who needed "acts" to be "included" in Greek society (as opposed to assimilating naturally over time)?
Nothing to prevent the widespread perception that the police were being infiltrated by fascists who were deliberately increasing the viciousness of responses to civil (and criminal) problems; nothing to root out any actual such infiltration, nothing to demonstrate that there was none in the first place.
If the police were "fascist," why haven't we seen a lot of dead rioters by now? If it was merely "perception," then why didn't the riots STOP when it became obvious that the police WEREN'T going to machinegun the crowds? (There's an obvious answer to the second question, but you wouldn't like it).
As for the "it's just anarchists who need a good slapping" theory, the Greeks themselves disagree with your learned opinion.
Sympathizers occupied the Greek consulates in Berlin and London, anarchists rioted out of solidarity in Barcelona, Rome and Copenhagen, and the sense of outrage has even reached New York.
Hardly looks like opportunistic skinheads and anarchists... to do such things so far away from the main action would indicate to me that they are deeply upset and that this is not an ordinary "burn the fucker down" riot, but something based on more serious grievances.
Actually, that looks a lot like "opportunistic skinheads and anarchists" to me. The riots, originally in one neighborhood in Athens, started small ... only when the police did not act against them did they grow bigger. As for the "sympathy" riots abroad, they were put down quickly by the national governments on whose territory they occurred, and they have not spread in those countries.
Don't forget, also, that Greece had a civil war, in living memory. They have a far more visceral and immediate knowledge of what a Civil War looks like, where it comes from, and what it means, than you ever will, barring that you go and participate in one yourself. And they are saying that it is getting to near that point.
I don't see any evidence that Greece is getting near a civil war. Still less do I see any evidence or reason to believe that putting down the riots quickly would have exacerbated the chance of a civil war. Usually, riots only grow into civil wars when the government gives them the opportunity to do so by timidity in responding to the rioters.
The Greek Civil War, in the late 1940's, was caused by the Greek Communists trying to take over. The Communists were backed by the Soviet Union and had sanctuaries on foreign soil. Which country do you believe is trying to play the role of "Soviet Union" in the current rioting? If you don't believe that any country is, then how do you imagine the rioters seizing power?
What it looks more like to me is as if the opposition party, the Socialists, through its hard-left contacts, helped to spark and spread the riots, and is hoping to use them to bring down the government of the ruling party, the Conservatives. In my view, the anarchists are simply dupes, who will be betrayed by the Socialists when they come to power.
Reply
Strangely enough, those Greeks who have experienced a civil war don't care about your nuanced and subtle distinctions about what evidence is needed to tell when widespread partisan violence is or is not "enough" like a civil war to worry about. They're busy trying to stop it actually turning into one.
It's amazing, but if you look at revolutions throughout history, they start big and small. (I'm expecting you to try something in the "ah ha ha that deosnt make sence you ar iliterite" line, and I would like to preemptively point out that the comprehension problem is not at my end.) But to explain the point: As I'm sure you remember from your endless studies, it is usually something relatively small that starts a revolution: the wrong person gets arrested, there is one too many scandals, nothing that would have been out of the ordinary the day before. But there also has to be that widespread and popular disquiet and distrust and dislike verging on fear and hatred of the authorities. The cause is some kid getting shot, but the reason is all the other things. The cause of the explosion was a spark near the gunpowder, but the reason was someone leaving gunpowder near sparks.
Your "analysis" of any putative civil war in Greece as having to be Just Like The Last One in any way whatsoever is so ridiculous I don't think it can be taken seriously enough to bother answering. I will ask when it became necessary for revolutionaries to even have the hope of winning for them to revolt? Besides which, if they bring in change then they have won. They don't have to institute a new government themselves to bring down the one they dislike so much.
And also, it has also been the case that excessive suppression of what are seen as righteous demonstrations (even if they actually are riots, what matters is public perception of the motives), cause the riots to get worse, and encourage people who wouldn't have to join in.
Because we all know that all England had to do was sufficiently suppress the disorder in Boston after a tea shipment was destroyed, and there never need to have been an American Revolution, right? It's not like there was any context, or that any other event could have sparked it off...
So. You know more about the situation in Greece than the Greeks do. Have you thought of telling them this? I'm sure they'd give you the hearing you deserve.
Reply
I've heard reports from Greece from the victims of the riots -- the shopkeepers and shopworkers -- that complain not of the harshness of the police force, but of the fecklessness of the govermnment in not ordering them to stop the riots quickly. The identification of your opinions, by yourself, with those of "the population of Greece," is unwarranted.
And you're weaselling away from your original definition of the Greek police as "totalitarian" -- when challenged on that point, and given the normal definition of "totalitarian," you are arguing that the opinion of some ill-defined group of Greeks, who may or may not be in sympathy with the majority of the Greek population, trumps the normal poli-sci definition of the term. Words are not that flexible.
Strangely enough, those Greeks who have experienced a civil war don't care about your nuanced and subtle distinctions about what evidence is needed to tell when widespread partisan violence is or is not "enough" like a civil war to worry about. They're busy trying to stop it actually turning into one.
No, that's the problem. The Greek government did not try adequately to stop it -- it ordered the police to hang back, giving the rioters the chance to demonstrate their power and hence attract adherents.
It's amazing, but if you look at revolutions throughout history, they start big and small.
I know of no successful revolution against a functioning liberal democracy. There have been some coups against such entities, but revolution from the bottom against such are difficult.
Know why? Because a functional liberal democracy channels all but the most extreme revolutionary sentiments into the opposition parties. There are, in short, mechanisms within the system for the expression of dissent. Shorn of the majority of discontented, revolutionary movements in liberal democracies remain tiny fringes, their greatest successes being limited to having parts of their platform adopted by the regular opposition parties.
And, if a liberal democracy does break down to a "might makes right" state of anarchy, the result is a coup. Why? Because it is the armed forces who have the majority of the might in such a situation. The role of revolutionary mobs in such situations is to provide some amusing target practice for the military.
Reply
You also need an organized revolutionary movement, which then convinces at least a significant amount of the population that there is no way to achieve desired objectives save by violent uprising. This is not the case in Greece, where the bulk of the population is perfectly aware that there will be upcoming elections, and that hence rather than risk their lives in a revolution which (after all) usually leads to a worse regime, they can simply vote out the rascals come the next election day.
Your "analysis" of any putative civil war in Greece as having to be Just Like The Last One in any way whatsoever is so ridiculous I don't think it can be taken seriously enough to bother answering.
So you, in fact, have no answer to the question of who would play "Soviet Union" in this hypothetical revolution.
You've just admitted that you don't think that there will be a major outside foreign sponsor for revolutionary forces.
You may not be aware that you have also now admitted that any such revolution would probably be abortive. But you have.
Reply
There is, as far as I know, no "organised revolutionary movement". Thus the riots are not revolutionary. That doesn't mean that a revolutionary movement can't happen.
Moreover, if one were to actually go and see what is going on right now, there have been mostly peaceful demonstrations through Athens (mostly without violence, but with lots of name-calling), with the exceptions of some people who haven't got the hint yet, and someone who has got hold of a gun and fired at a police car... wounding nobody at all. It's still tense, but it has dropped back to the point where it can be mopped up, and those who haven't gone back in their boxes rounded up as criminals, rather than war on the streets.
Apart from the kid whose death started it all, what's the death toll? As far as I can tell, zero.
There being no actual push to civil war, merely the possibility of it, there is no need for your "Soviet Union surrogate". There was more of a Paris Riots situation than a storming of the Bastille.
To try and answer some of the points you raise in your desperate flurry of attempts to convince yourself, there does not need to be a majority of Greeks supporting or sympathising with the rioters, just a sufficient quorum. Moreover, you seem to be under some misapprehension as to exactly how left wing Greece is. The Conservatives rule with one seat, and on the left side of politics there are not just the Socialists, but three separate Communist parties, two of them with Marxist-Leninist in the name.
Were these rioters rebels, things would have gone down quite differently. But there was always the chance that if it wasn't dealt with carefully, that it could have gone differently. Going in hard and fast with the very police who were one of the complaints, would not have been a useful way to proceed: it would most likely have just enraged those who were marching, not setting fire to things.
As it is, things are calming down, those who did not know when to stop are going to have people looking for them, the Conservative party may well lose a seat or two (and power), and the next election will be fought with police reform as one of the major platforms of every party which wants to win.
So no fall of democracy, civilisation and goodness in Greece. Sorry to disappoint. Even if there was less smashing of protesters than of shopfronts.
But really, I have better things to do on Christmas Day, and you must really have better things to do on Christmas Eve.
Reply
ROFLMAO!!!
Because people generally don't fling their naked bodies against armored fighting vehicles and machine guns with the intent of merely making a statement, that's why!
Besides which, if they bring in change then they have won. They don't have to institute a new government themselves to bring down the one they dislike so much.
They can "bring in change" simply by electing a new Government. They need not engage in violence to do so. Nor need they persecute innocent shopowners and employees.
Furthermore, if the rebels don't win, they have no control over what sort of "change" occurs. It might be the direct opposite of the change they desired. You don't get this because you probably think that there is only one POSSIBLE DIRECTION of "change.
Case in point -- the Communists certainly succeeded in bringing "change" to the Weimar Republic. Would you say that they achieved their goals?
Reply
First of all, I disagree with your opnion that the majority of the Greeks see the riots as "righteous demonstrations." All your quotes come from the academic left-wing minority, which notably wasn't even able to win the last elections.
Secondly, I disagree with your claim that putting down riots usually causes them to get worse. Generally speaking, riots answered with force discourage new recruits from risking their bodies by joining the rioters; riots met with weakness encourage new recruits to riot because they see little risk in so doing.
Because we all know that all England had to do was sufficiently suppress the disorder in Boston after a tea shipment was destroyed, and there never need to have been an American Revolution, right? It's not like there was any context, or that any other event could have sparked it off...
Counting down the ways in which the situation in America in the mid-1770's importantly differed from that prevailing in modern Greece:
(1) The Thirteen Colonies had no legitimate means of political activity to answer the Royal demands, because they had no Parliamentary representation. This was, in fact, the primary issue which led to the secession of the Colonies from the Crown -- all the other issues (taxes on stamps, regulation of customs, colonial trading laws) depended upon that one.
By contrast, legal avenues of effective political dissent, up to and including choosing a new government, exist in modern Greece.
(2) There was an organized revolutionary movement within the Colonies -- the Committees of Correspondence. The "disorder" in Boston and New England was quite carefully organized by Samuel Adams and his associates -- it was not a serious of spontaneous uprisings.
There appears to be some sort of organization in Greece underlying the riots, but it is a very divided and rudimentary structure, with contradictory concepts of how to govern. It is by no means certain that it can levy taxes, raise and equip troops, and do the other things required of a real faction in a civil war.
(3) The American "Revolution" was in fact more of a secession than a "revolution," which enabled the Colonies to quickly and with widespread popular support organize a government around the Continental Congress, using the existing structures of colonial government as a framework (the "states" were simply the old "colonies," without even a change of anything but description and the method of choosing the Governors).
There is absolutely no motive of secession here, and (with the exception of University administrations) no civil governmental forms which the Greek rebels can use in order to govern. This means that areas taken over by the rebels would quickly lose access to vital civil and legal services, and thus be ungovernable by the rebels.
(4) While there was no "Soviet Union" for the rebels at the American Revolution's outset, one quickly appeared in the form of France (and to a lesser extent Spain and the Netherlands). Without foreign aid, the American Revoultion would have been put down by the British, probably by 1780 or so.
It's hard to say if any country would step into France's role in a modern Greek Revolution. Such a country would earn the ire of and probably be embargoed by America, NATO and the European Union. There is no international sponsor of "anarchism," though the Islamofascist component in the rebellion might be supported by Turkey (which would give up its chance of joining the EU to do so) or some Mideastern Terrorist States (which wouldn't care). It's not likely that the rebels would last long enough to receive significant foreign aid, though, due to problems "1-3."
Reply
... if things got that far, because the potential rebels can all follow the same chain of reasoning that I did. Only the fools are rioting, and most of them would go home the first time that government forces opened fire. Then all that would be left would be the suicidally evil, whose elimination would be to the advantage of the Greek future.
Reply
It might also suprise you to know that there are quite a lot of people in Greece who voted for far more Left parties than the moderate Panhellenic Socialists. There are, for a start, three different Communist parties, two of them explicitly Marxist-Leninist. (Shades of the Judaean People's Front, no wait, the People's Front of Judaea, no wait...)
But anyway, if the Conservatives fall and the Socialists get in, then yes, it is widely understood that they will screw the people over just as much as the Conservatives do... That's why people are so upset in the first place.
Reply
Then I would presume the situation is ripe for the emergence of a new party. This, rather than fools running around in the streets hurting innocent people and damaging their property, will be the real story -- unless, of course, the democracy collapses altogether.
But if the democracy collapses altogether, the anarchists and similar idiots won't be the ones to benefit. They'll be the ones being "disappeared" by the new military regime.
It couldn't happen to a bunch of nicer people, if it does :)
The Anarchists (who, by the way, are not the only people on the streets), want both major parties out.
And how do they propose to accomplish this?
But anyway, if the Conservatives fall and the Socialists get in, then yes, it is widely understood that they will screw the people over just as much as the Conservatives do... That's why people are so upset in the first place.
Then they should found a new party, vote for it, and try to get it into the next Government. Not run around the streets like imbeciles.
Reply
Whether the government is totalitarian or not is a matter of opinion. The Greek population are of the opinion that it is, or at the least that the police are, and that neither is trustworthy.
That the Greek government is incompetent is fairly well established.
It, of course, couldn't stop the riots, because ...?
... It is too late to stop the riots. It was too late well before that kid got himself shot. You're into Speculative Fiction... think Hari Seldon. It is long since too late to stop the chaos, but if things are done carefully, something might be retrievable afterwards.
Reply
Why should the rioters stop rioting? They are having fun at virtually no real risk to themselves? They are enjoying the pain and sorrow in a shopkeeper's eyes when they burn down his life's dream, and then taunt and beat him for the sin of not being Unbearably Cool like they are. And nobody beats them up for this, nobody shoots them, nobody arrests them ... why, if you were the sort of person who likes hurting people, would you ever stop?
Whether the government is totalitarian or not is a matter of opinion.
Sure, if you're the sort of person to which the meaning of words is irrelevant, and "totalitarian" is just a noise that you shout at people you don't like.
The Greek government is quite clearly a "liberal democracy." Any in the Greek population who think that it isn't are deluded, and your argument
The Greek population are of the opinion that it is ...
is logically equivalent to saying
"The Greek population is deluded."
... or at the least that the police are ...
How does a police force behave in a "totalitarian" (as opposed to "authoritarian" manner)? Are they, for instance, enforcing complete conformity of ideology upon the Greek people? If the police force is "totalitarian," why have they maintained the universities as sanctuaries, failed to crack down on the rioters, etc? Your argument makes no sense.
... and that neither is trustworthy.
I could easily believe that.
It, of course, couldn't stop the riots, because ...?
... It is too late to stop the riots. It was too late well before that kid got himself shot. You're into Speculative Fiction... think Hari Seldon. It is long since too late to stop the chaos, but if things are done carefully, something might be retrievable afterwards.
So, wait ... you think that it's impossible for the government to stop the riots once they have started? Does this curious belief apply to all riots, or only these riots?
If the former, your lovely Titanic of theory is colliding rather hard into a big iceberg of cold reality -- namerly, that many riots have historically been stopped by government action.
If the latter, what's special about the Greek rioters that renders them immune to checking by means of riot police, the military etc.?
Reply
Leave a comment