[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
International News Title: Spicer on Assad: Even Hitler didn’t use chemical weapons Two clips from today’s presser, one more unfortunate than the other. Spicer knows his World War II history, I’m sure (although the term “Holocaust centers” is a new one on me). The error here is an excess of zeal in trying to demonize Assad, who really is demonic, by reaching for the worst benchmark he can come up with without thinking through the analogy. Hitler didn’t use chemical weapons — except, okay, he did, but he didn’t use them against his own people. Except, okay, he did, but he didn’t drop them on people, he … rounded them up and gassed them systematically in death factories. Advantage: Hitler, I guess? Where was he going with this point in which somehow Hitler compares favorably to Assad? Hitler didn’t use sarin on the battlefield, true. And therefore…? Can we acknowledge, at least, that the fact that we’ve reached the “Assad is worse than Hitler” talking point less than a week after Trump’s airstrike likely means (a) more strikes are on the way, since we can’t let WorseThanHitler continue to act with impunity, and (b) last week’s strike really was a humanitarian measure against an evil actor, not a defense of U.S. national security interests? Assad’s not waging an expansionist war to build a Greater Baathist Reich, he’s trying to crush the Sunnis battling to overthrow him. He’s not going to take France and threaten America from across the Atlantic. Although, thanks to Obama, his patrons in Iran may threaten the U.S. with nuclear missiles sooner rather than later. Exit lesson: If you’re a PR person in any capacity, stay away from Hitler analogies, for cripes sake. Update: Spicer tries to clarify. Update: Another clarification. “I was trying to draw a distinction of the tactic of using airplanes to drop chemical weapons on population centers,” Spicer notes. Right, but as Jake Tapper says, “This doesn’t really answer the question as to why doing it from a plane is worse than building gas chambers in death camps.” Spicer’s still clinging to the idea that using chemical weapons on the battlefield and/or via airdrops crosses a moral line that even Hitler wouldn’t cross. It doesn’t really, though. It’s a difference in tactics, not morals. — Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) April 11, 2017 — Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) April 11, 2017 Poster Comment: We've reached the Worse Than Hitler™ phase of the Syria discussion. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 13. One thing about Hitler and gas chambers.... if there was a move to exterminate lots of people (Jews and such) why would the Germans use a special, lab created substance like Zyclon-B or whatever that would need to be bottled and transported to the various places, when diesel or gasoline engine exhaust fumes would accomplish the same goal much more cheaply? In wartime, laboratories would certainly be put to the most productive use, so wouldn't it be a waste of time and resources to spend money and such creating a gas in a laboratory that can kill, when exhaust fumes would be already readily available on each site? Germans have a reputation for efficiency, at least from that era, so if that's true, I don't think they would have wasted resources producing any special lethal gas in a lab, during wartime, for use in systematically killing people.
#12. To: Pinguinite (#11) One thing about Hitler and gas chambers.... if there was a move to exterminate lots of people (Jews and such) why would the Germans use a special, lab created substance like Zyclon-B or whatever that would need to be bottled and transported to the various places, when diesel or gasoline engine exhaust fumes would accomplish the same goal much more cheaply? In wartime, laboratories would certainly be put to the most productive use, so wouldn't it be a waste of time and resources to spend money and such creating a gas in a laboratory that can kill, when exhaust fumes would be already readily available on each site? It was inefficient to try to kill large numbers of people just using exhaust. Yes, you can do it but it isn't cheap or convenient. You don't have to be concerned that German efficiency failed. The Germans considered it a scientific problem to solve.
#13. To: Tooconservative (#12) It was inefficient to try to kill large numbers of people just using exhaust. Yes, you can do it but it isn't cheap or convenient. I fail to see how it would not be both cheaper and more convenient than by the method they reputed to have used. Whether using exhaust, Zyclon-B or some other deadly gaseous chemical, the process would have been identical. First crowd the condemned into reasonably airtight chambers and then fill it with the deadly gas of choice.
You don't have to be concerned that German efficiency failed. The Germans considered it a scientific problem to solve. That the German's may have done something inefficiently is not my concern. Certainly any large scale practice would be done efficiently by necessity, especially during wartime. My concern is that the belief that the gassing of millions of people with a lab produced chemical may not be accurate, that if such gassing occurred, it more likely would have been done with a more readily available substance (exhaust). And if that historical belief is not accurate, then it could mean that other historical beliefs about the same subject are similarly not accurate.
Replies to Comment # 13. #16. To: Pinguinite, misterwhite (#13) I fail to see how it would not be both cheaper and more convenient than by the method they reputed to have used. Whether using exhaust, Zyclon-B or some other deadly gaseous chemical, the process would have been identical. First crowd the condemned into reasonably airtight chambers and then fill it with the deadly gas of choice. Just seal them in an airtight room. Their own CO2 emissions will kill them without using engine exhaust or Zyklon. But it's too slow, too inefficient. And using one bullet was still more expensive than using Zyklon. You recall that in Russia, the Germans did use a single bullet to the back of the neck or head on groups of people kneeling in front of a trench or pit (Einsatzgruppen). That was more cost-effective than trying to build camps or transport the victims to existing extermination facilities. The Germans tried but couldn't make it work with exhaust or bullets so that they could kill off all the targeted Jews in a reasonable number of years. They did leave behind the records of their experiments which were extensive. The Einsatzgruppen link contains info on how they first shot and gassed with trucks but that it was too hard on the troops and too inefficient. That is why they build the concentration camps which they could use for slave labor until they executed the worn-down prisoners.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 13. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|||
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|