Miloš Zeman on the Islamic State: Cannibals and the Enemies of Civilization

Czech President Miloš Zeman does not mince words when the topic is Islam. In the following report about a conference on the island of Rhodes, Mr. Zeman described the mujahideen of the Islamic State as “cannibals”, among other things.

Many thanks to CrossWare for translating this article from the Hungarian news portal Magyar Idők:

Czech President: The Islamic State is “Anti-Civilization”

On Friday Czech President Miloš Zeman called the Islamic terror state “anti-civilization”, describing them as cannibals with whom it would be impossible to negotiate.

Zeman spoke in the opening of a two day national security conference called “Discussions of Civilizations” on the Greek island of Rhodes. In his speech — which was reported in the Czech media — he referred to the Islamic State as a cancer on society which is trying to expand beyond Iraq and Syria into the world, and its only purpose is to destroy civilization.

As an example from the last century, he mentioned “Nazism, which tried to exterminate first the Jews and then the Slavs, and later other populations,” said Miloš Zeman in his Russian-language speech. The Czech President said: “You can’t have a discussion with cannibals. For them you are just a bite to eat.”

The Czech head of state emphasized that it would be mistake underestimate the Islamic State because just like last century — in the case of Adolf Hitler and the Nazism — that would lead to serious tragedies.

Before he was elected President, Miloš Zeman attended this event, which was organized by Vladimir Yakunin, a Russian billionaire who has a very close relationship with Vladimir Putin. The discussion forum has been held more than ten times on the island of Rhodes. Zeman participated in 2014 for the first time. The two-day conference will be closing with a speech from Václav Klaus, who was Zeman’s predecessor in the office of the Czech president.

3 thoughts on “Miloš Zeman on the Islamic State: Cannibals and the Enemies of Civilization

  1. Correctly stated. As Churchill said, Islam has bloody borders. Even for those who cannot abide history, it is quite apparent Islam is a war cult.
    The ongoing treachery of American political figures who have forced NATO into an anti-Russian war machine when the groundwork had been laid for a lasting detente should not be forgotten. Who precisely benefits from the Syrian War? In whose interest is it fought?
    If Clinton wins a few new realities will set in: hundreds of thousands of Syrian- theater migrants will come to the USA. A very dangerous probability of tactical nuclear weapons being used will occur. As a result much of Europe will abandon the USA, no matter what the political figures say. Perhaps Poland and the Baltic states will elect to stay allied with us, but those countries will be on war footing, which means pre-mobilization. Pre-mobilization can be maintained for a while, but not long term – certainly not for a civilian population.

    • I don’t think even those states would stay, no matter how they distrust Russia or Germany. European alliances changed all the time throughout our history, if most of Europe turns towards Russia or finally stands on their own feet, they will go with either stream too, even if just temporarily and especially if the US become pro-migration (Poland is the most against it, even though not as vocal as Hungary). But lets wait for the presidential elections first, maybe Americans still have enough common sense left to not listen to massmedia propaganda

    • What is the benefit to the European countries of alliance with the US in NATO?

      Russia voluntarily pulled back from the borders of the USSR, granting independence to the Soviet satellites. The future of Russia’s immediate neighbors does not include saber and rocket rattling. It’s just not healthy. They will have to come to an accommodation with Russia which might not leave them as independent as they would wish.

      But, if Russia is not gearing up for world expansion, I fail to see the benefit of maintaining US support of NATO. NATO was used to bomb Serbia into submission, but there was no threat to NATO nations. NATO is being used to carry out operations in the Middle East, especially Syria, whose benefits to the US is highly questionable.

      The main function of NATO seems to be to serve as a tripwire to a general war if any local dispute leads to an armed confrontation.

      By the way, whose interest is served by the US-supported Syrian rebellion?

Comments are closed.