Spicer, Hitler and Trump's Remarkable Change

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by n david

In other news, anyone else suffering from whiplash? How about the Trump supporters on AFF who were drawn to Trump's non-interventionist foreign policy?

Trump has authorized an attack on Syria, has requested and received options for a military strike on North Korea, and today I'm hearing they're talking about further military action (boots on the ground) in Yemen.

It's disappointing. Seems like each POTUS, once they take the oath, suddenly change and become an agent for the globalist cabal.

I am disappointed also, but I think when you get in that position you end up with a different perspective and feel the need to engage in power politics to protect national interests, threatening others with military, economic and political aggression.

I'm sick of war and jaded to the plight of other countries, I'm prone to be non-interventionist, with a *let them kill each other* attitude.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Hitler did not use chemical weapons on the battlefield. That is all Spicer meant. This is a non-story.

That's not what Spicer said initially, though he did issue a few clarifications as to what he meant to say.

It's not as bad as the press has made it. Certainly not a mistake worth being fired for.

Speaking of mistake - did anyone see the news anchor who accidently missed the cue and was daydreaming when the camera went back to her? It was pretty funny, I thought.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I am disappointed also, but I think when you get in that position you end up with a different perspective and feel the need to engage in power politics to protect national interests, threatening others with military, economic and political aggression.

I'm sick of war and jaded to the plight of other countries, I'm prone to be non-interventionist, with a *let them kill each other* attitude.

Post 9/11, I was gung-ho about "spreading democracy" and the Bush Doctrine. IIRC, it was around 2006 that I became tired of the never-ending "war on terror," and the problems which grew from it.

I feel the same way as the bold part now. I don't believe American democracy will ever work in the middle east. And every time we take out a bad guy, a dozen more bad guys, worse than the previous bad guy, take over. Enough is enough. At some point, the US must stop trying to be the world's police force.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by n david

Sean Spicer . . . oh that was painful to watch. Honestly most of his press briefings have been difficult to watch, but yesterday's briefing was even more painful. I'm not impressed with his style and mannerisms, but I don't dislike him. He started off on the wrong foot with his very first presser in which he berated the press over the Inauguration crowd size. Such a stupid thing to complain about, but it set the tone which has not improved since.

During yesterday's presser, there was this exchange:

"""Q Thanks a lot, Sean. The alliance between Russia and Syria is a strong one; it goes back decades. President Putin has supplied personnel, he’s supplied military equipment to the Assad government. What makes you think that at this point he’s going to pull back in his support for President Assad and for the Syrian government right now?

MR. SPICER: I think a couple things. You look -- we didn't use chemical weapons in World War II. You had someone as despicable as Hitler who didn't even sink to using chemical weapons. So you have to, if you're Russia, ask yourself is this a country that you and a regime that you want to align yourself with? You have previously signed on to international agreements rightfully acknowledging that the use of chemical weapons should be out of bounds by every country. To not stand up to not only Assad, but your own word, should be troubling.

Russia put their name on the line. So it’s not a question of how long that alliance has lasted, but at what point do they recognize that they are now getting on the wrong side of history in a really bad way really quickly.

And again, look at the countries that are standing with them: Iran, Syria, North Korea. This is not a team you want to be on. And I think that Russia has to recognize that while they may have had an alliance with them, that the lines that have been crossed are ones that no country should ever want to see another country cross."""

You had someone as despicable as Hitler who didn't even sink to using chemical weapons.

Uh, Mr. Spicer, sir, Hitler actually gassed Jews. Now, I get some on AFF may dispute this or the numbers, but there's evidence Hitler gassed Jews.

Then he dug the hole deeper:

"""Q Sean, thanks. I just want to give you an opportunity to clarify something you said that seems to be gaining some traction right now. “Hitler didn’t even sink to the level of using chemical weapons.” What did you mean by that?

MR. SPICER: I think when you come to sarin gas, there was no -- he was not using the gas on his own people the same way that Assad is doing, I mean, there was clearly -- I understand your point, thank you."""

Oh, okay. Hitler didn't use Sarin gas on other Germans, instead he used Zyklon B on Jews. Gotcha. That's totally different than the Syria allegations.

Continuing . . .

"""Q I'm just getting --

MR. SPICER: Thank you, I appreciate that. There was not -- he brought them into the Holocaust center, I understand that. But I’m saying in the way that Assad used them, where he went into towns, dropped them down to innocent -- into the middle of towns. It was brought -- so the use of it -- I appreciate the clarification there. That was not the intent.





"he [Hitler] brought them into the Holocaust center." Is that like an amusement park or museum? What in the world is Spicer talking about??? The "Holocaust center?" Oh, you mean Auschwitz??

"in the way Assad used them ... dropped them down to innocent..." Jews weren't innocent, obviously. Certainly at least one here on AFF has gone to great lengths to try and prove how awful and satanic the Jews are.

Man, oh man, Spicer. I almost feel bad for the guy.

The reaction from the Democrats was just as bad. Pelosi and the Anne Frank Center demanded he be fired. Please. Should he clarify and apologize? Absolutely, and he did. But fired? No. He made a mistake. (I'd be tempted to get up at the next presser and list all of Pelosi's mistakes and dumb comments, but that's me.)

I doubt I could do Spicer's job ... especially with a POTUS like Trump! You have to know so many key issues, terminology, names, dates, places, etc. And then if you misspeak or make a mistake, you're hoping POTUS doesn't listen to the crowd and fire you.

It is a difficult job.
Especially when the press is constantly trying to trip you up.
However, the ironic thing is that I heard the same line on NPR, (regarding Hitler and Sarin), from a Democratic congressman before this.
There was no outrage from anyone, then.
The person interviewing him on NPR did not call him on it.
I was ticked about it and went home and told it to the wife.
It's almost like he was listening to NPR or there is a talking point memo read by both.

[aegsm76]

Found the interview.
And it was not a congressman.
It was Stephen Rapp a US ambassador-at-large under BHO.
link
http://www.npr.org/2017/04/05/522690...st-58-in-syria
snippet
No question this is, you know, having won Aleppo and Idlib, area - being an area that's still under opposition control and having gotten away with mass murder and crimes that weren't even committed in World War II, the regime is ratcheting it up to show that it can get away with essentially mass atrocities in order to win its war.

[Aquila]

Sarin gas was developed under Hitler’s government and Nazi Gen. Hermann Ochsner, who led the German Army Weapons Office, called for it to be deployed via airstrikes, arguing: “There is no doubt that a city like London would be plunged into a state of unbearable turmoil that would bring enormous pressure to bear on the enemy government.” Nazis did not use chemical weapons against American and British troops in the field, though they reportedly employed them against Russian forces at various points.

And although German troops may not have used chemical weapons on the battlefield against the Americans or the British, they were wielded with abandon against German citizens (and numerous others) in prison camps. According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Hitler’s regime started using poisonous gases against Germans in 1939, with mental patients being the first people put to death through the use of carbon monoxide gas under a practice the Nazis referred to as “euthanasia.”

Starting in December 1941, this method of killing expanded through the use of “gas vans” employing engine exhaust as well as carbon monoxide and crystalline hydrogen cyanide (a.k.a. Zyklon B) in concentration camps such as Auschwitz-Birkenau, Belzec, and Treblinka, among others. The museum states on its website that “Under SS management, the Germans and their collaborators murdered more than three million Jews in the killing centers alone. Only a small fraction of those imprisoned in Nazi camps survived.”

[n david]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

It is a difficult job.
Especially when the press is constantly trying to trip you up.
However, the ironic thing is that I heard the same line on NPR, (regarding Hitler and Sarin), from a Democratic congressman before this.
There was no outrage from anyone, then.
The person interviewing him on NPR did not call him on it.
I was ticked about it and went home and told it to the wife.
It's almost like he was listening to NPR or there is a talking point memo read by both.

Well, honestly, who listens to NPR???

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by n david

Well, honestly, who listens to NPR???

Have to admit that I do...
It helps me see what the libs are up to.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Sarin gas was developed under Hitler’s government and Nazi Gen. Hermann Ochsner, who led the German Army Weapons Office, called for it to be deployed via airstrikes, arguing: “There is no doubt that a city like London would be plunged into a state of unbearable turmoil that would bring enormous pressure to bear on the enemy government.” Nazis did not use chemical weapons against American and British troops in the field, though they reportedly employed them against Russian forces at various points.

And although German troops may not have used chemical weapons on the battlefield against the Americans or the British, they were wielded with abandon against German citizens (and numerous others) in prison camps. According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Hitler’s regime started using poisonous gases against Germans in 1939, with mental patients being the first people put to death through the use of carbon monoxide gas under a practice the Nazis referred to as “euthanasia.”

Starting in December 1941, this method of killing expanded through the use of “gas vans” employing engine exhaust as well as carbon monoxide and crystalline hydrogen cyanide (a.k.a. Zyklon B) in concentration camps such as Auschwitz-Birkenau, Belzec, and Treblinka, among others. The museum states on its website that “Under SS management, the Germans and their collaborators murdered more than three million Jews in the killing centers alone. Only a small fraction of those imprisoned in Nazi camps survived.”

Understand that I have no doubt that thousands of Jews died and some were gassed. But I do have "questions" about the numbers given here. One should have the liberty to question these numbers without being labeled a "holocaust denier". There are even Jewish researchers, certainly not sympathetic to the Nazis, who cast serious doubt on these numbers. They present very convincing research that the numbers simply do not add up because, utilizing the methods of killing and disposing of the bodies that Nazis are said to have used, it would have been mathematically impossible to have killed so many and burned their bodies in a 2-3 year period. The fact that I would go to prison in some countries for expressing in a forum like AFF my doubts about the official line intrigues me even more. When something is declared off-limits for questioning and scrutiny, it usually means it is full of holes. What did happen was bad enough without adding inventions to it.

I remain officially undecided on the 6 million figure, but I have seen enough evidence to cast serious doubt in my mind.

Consider this. Hitler considered Bolshevism and Judaism to be synonymous. Yet during his invasion of the USSR, although using some scorched-earth tactics, he did not use chemical weapons against the "Jewish Bolsheviks", not even to save his troops at Stalingrad? Why? Yet he was supposed to have used gas on 6 million imprisoned non-combatants who posed no threat to him? Just as I have doubts that Hassad in Syria used chemical weapons last week against civilians, so also I believe there is room to doubt the official WW2 line. Doing so does not constitute a defense of or an endorsement of either Hassad or Hitler.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Understand that I have no doubt that thousands of Jews died and some were gassed. But I do have "questions" about the numbers given here. One should have the liberty to question these numbers without being labeled a "holocaust denier". There are even Jewish researchers, certainly not sympathetic to the Nazis, who cast serious doubt on these numbers. They present very convincing research that the numbers simply do not add up because, utilizing the methods of killing and disposing of the bodies that Nazis are said to have used, it would have been mathematically impossible to have killed so many and burned their bodies in a 2-3 year period. The fact that I would go to prison in some countries for expressing in a forum like AFF my doubts about the official line intrigues me even more. When something is declared off-limits for questioning and scrutiny, it usually means it is full of holes. What did happen was bad enough without adding inventions to it.

I remain officially undecided on the 6 million figure, but I have seen enough evidence to cast serious doubt in my mind.

Consider this. Hitler considered Bolshevism and Judaism to be synonymous. Yet during his invasion of the USSR, although using some scorched-earth tactics, he did not use chemical weapons against the "Jewish Bolsheviks", not even to save his troops at Stalingrad? Why? Yet he was supposed to have used gas on 6 million imprisoned non-combatants who posed no threat to him? Just as I have doubts that Hassad in Syria used chemical weapons last week against civilians, so also I believe there is room to doubt the official WW2 line. Doing so does not constitute a defense of or an endorsement of either Hassad or Hitler.

Orig - I think your issue is that you cannot imagine anyone being that evil.
I also used to question the "official" narrative, but after much research and study, I do not.
I also spent much time with WW2 vets and believe me the Germans were as evil as you can imagine.