Spice-er

REPORTER: President Trump has spoken out extensively about the crimes of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Does the President consider Assad a war criminal and does he believe eventually Assad should eventually appear before the ICC?

   SPICER: I think right now the focus is twofold. One is defeating ISIS and the second is creating the political environment necessary for the Syrian people to have new leadership there. I don’t think there is — I can’t imagine a stable and peaceful Syria where Bashar al-Assad is in power.



I think that's fair.

I get that point, but I just can't agree. The US inspired the "rebels" in Syria, funded FSA and deliberately created ISIS, so the instability in Syria is largely the fault of the US to begin with; and remember that Assad is fighting against ISIS and other extremist Muslim groups.

Trump wants to fight ISIS and radical terrorism, so his plan is to... get rid of Assad, who is also fighting those exact same things? It makes no sense.

Regime change, so called ("regime change" is just an Orwellian term), is a very bad idea. Trump understood this and said as much when he was a candidate... not sure why he is changing his mind now.

Remember, the goal of FSA and ISIS and other radical anarchic Islamic extremist groups is to get rid of the Syrian government and Assad... so how is Trump now basically agreeing with them on that goal now? Trump is proposing that we do exactly what ISIS wants: get rid of Assad.

I think it's a problematic fact that both isis and Assad have to go. I figured this 4 years ago and so did the people I talked to who came to me with footage of Assads pipe bombs and the victims. That was in the second year of the war. None of these people are isis, just children. He's bombed to smithereens hundreds of thousands of his own people. Isis bodycount must pale in comparison. And thats just now. The history of his family ruling Syria is sickening.

So what to do now?
I dont know. But Assad has to go. Ive been thinking that for years, and when I was there I was also thinking this is a bit of s sick place.

Note that isis recruits from all layers of the population. A brother of a guy I know went to join them when he was disallowed a girlfriend due to his religion. He went for another interpretation.

Yeah, I'm not saying Assad is a great guy. I'm just saying there is a larger picture here, and "Assad is bad" is just one small part of that, just like "Saddam is bad" was just one small part of the Iraq thing.

It's funny, the parallels are basically the exact same here, Iraq then, to Syria now. And it didn't turn out well last time.

The thing is that obviously I want the Russians to be able to give their people the impression that they control the succession together with the US. I also want there to be a general outcome in which Russia retains its status as regional leader, but I would definitely like to see that leadership somewhat enlightened.
Ive been full iof praise for Putin for ever, yet I praise him as a Russian leader, and thus as a pillar of Eastern Europe, one of the darkest regions of the world.
What Russia does is simpler, less arrogant than what Nato does - but if didnt use to be. Russia now served to calm down Natos ambitions - but this has forced Nato to rearrange its components like a tranformer so as to be able to deal with the situation. This is why Trump has won from a military perspective - the US is infinitely more capable to address Putin now. All that was needed was some testosterone, now you simply have an enormous advantage because of the size and quality of the military. Putin will have to behave somewhat like a normal country to work this out - that is to say, he might have to work with the English. That'll not be his favorite option. But he has to consider the advantages now that England is no longer EU. He can fuck Germany by approaching England, at least.

I dont know. I dont have a golden hall or an oval office. Im just sitting here.

Thrasymachus wrote:

Yeah, I'm not saying Assad is a great guy. I'm just saying there is a larger picture here, and "Assad is bad" is just one small part of that, just like "Saddam is bad" was just one small part of the Iraq thing.

It's funny, the parallels are basically the exact same here, Iraq then, to Syria now. And it didn't turn out well last time.

This is moving us into what I assume Trump hopes to be the end game of the 2003 war. Isis is US troops in the ME. The war was full scale when Trump took office and it was all US manufactured - so he does need to thoroughly wrap this up.

It is scary, a literal hell of a task.

Radical Islam, so called, was a useful tool for the US to create, but now it's gotten way out of control. No way to fight an ideology like that with bombs, you only make it stronger.

Neither can you appease it like the U.K. pre-Brexit or Germany have tried to do. "Integrate terrorists, civilize them", that doesn't work either. There is no clear answer.

This is why I want the US out of the ME entirely. Let their own people and cultures deal with radicalism. Let Islam tackle its own inner demons.

The war theater is different now as you have to consider Iran is no longer able to as directly influence this as they were in Iraq, where they sent whole populations into the area to fight and destroy, as the US only had troops concentrated in distinct areas.
Syria, being smaller first of all but more importantly even, bordered by two powerful well organized states with vast military capacity, namely Israel and Turkey.
To win this war, Trump has to leverage Turkey. Turkey and Russia are the regions lord and overlord, Iran is its own country but doesnt understand that, it has literally nothing to offer but arrogant mingling in secular affairs with religious mysticism backed my sinister will. Its vengeful and resentful. Theyre really morose about not being the mighty Persia anymore. But why then do they try for it with an Arab religion? Persia must really heed its past now. There isnt much to it.

Islam will always be a force for Arabs, its an ornament to them if they are mild with it, which in the 90's most of them, and I mean 99 percent, definitely were. This is the secret to the religion - because it is absolute, it needs to be largely ignored.
Many, many millions of poems and riddles have served as means to sin and avoid judgment - a romantic tradition that even inspired the early French minstrels, as the blood of the moors mixed with those Frankish Romans and created that all too sensual tongue.

So you see I think this then boils down to who owns - gets to own - Islam.
Let it be Mekka for Christ sakes, it was born there, not in Persepolis.
Syria is largely sunni, it's ruled by a guy of a sect of less than 10 percent of the population.
The Arab spring will break through any old sunni regimes. I suddenly remember what Im being told by a girl from the land where it started - and now, it was winter then but now it is spring - I sense it. It will break through.
It will probably be the best shit ever.

I see this in terms of a conflict that started with the sons of Abraham.
Not because I necessarily give a shit for these sons, but because the parties involved have evolved as sworn enemies over these myths.
The Arabs and thus muslims are Ishmaels sons, the Jews are Isaacs, whose son Jacob became known as Israel and had 12 sons.

Thrasymachus wrote:

This is why I want the US out of the ME entirely. Let their own people and cultures deal with radicalism. Let Islam tackle its own inner demons.

It's not their demon- it's not their technology.
These kids are being valued in terms of US technology.
They have no will, they are indeed demons - but world-demons. Islam is being used as one resource, US military as another, European shittiness as a third - and then there is the logistic infrastructure which is absolutely not under Syrian or Iraq control.

I think radical Islam in as far as it is completely regional, is Iranian. I honestly know a lot about their practices, as Ive edited a film for a guy who went to all the self flaggelation feasts across Asia (....) and yeah. A problem.
Sunnis dont do that.

When I say "kids" I dont mean to convey sympathy, or humanity. I never liked that word, I'd only use it cynically or about a musical group.

In holland people now say 'de kids'.
Hee Truus, haal jij de kids van school? Dan doe ik de afwas.

https://www.rt.com/usa/384406-spicer-chemical-weapons-hitler/



Yeah. He was right yesterday, and still is in what he tries to say - but I still dont think this guy was born to do this work.
Milo might have some trouble relaying war justifications too though.

Actually, I understand the point he was trying to make. But he just used the wrong words.

Sisyphus wrote:

Actually, I understand the point he was trying to make.  But he just used the wrong words.

Yep.