A few days ago White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer linked deaths by chemial attacks in Syria to the Holocaust. His speech, while (according to him) was well intended, was inaccurate and insensitive.
Spicer started off his messy response by talking about how even in WWII the US didn't use chemical weapons. But what about nucelar bombs dropped on Japan? It's not the same but it's quite similar. President Trump pointed out that the Syrians who died in this chemical attack had died slow, painful deaths - but so did the Japanese. The atomic bomb killed many instantly, but many were left with burns and diseases that slowly killed them.
But the atom bomb was not Spicers point, it was Hitler. Spicer, in what read as a defense of Hitler (although I don't think it was his intention but just a horribly misguided attempt at condemning Assad). Spicer said that even someone as despicable as Hitler didn't use chemical weapons - except he did. So what about gas chambers? Were carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide not chemical weapons?
In an attempt to backtrack and save face Spicer said he meant that Hitler never used chemical weapons on his own citizens. So, were German Jews not German? And even if he hadn't, even if we stick to concentration camps in other countries like the infamous Auschwitz in Poland (which was then part of Nazi Germany and invalidates this idea but let's run with it for the sake of argument), does that justify it?
Spicers' comments implied that it is better - morally speaking - to kill millions of people who are not your own than to kill your own citizens. But isn't a life a life? Do the alleged civilians who died in Syria matter less to Spicer than those who died by the alleged Assad ordered attack because they're not American?
And why so much force? Did we really need to send 59 missiles? I don't buy the argument that the airstrike was justified as a lesson on the immorality of gassing your own people. It was a show of bravado - it was a way to say "remember who has the power, who's the real scary Nation, who's in charge." It was a way to remind the world of the US's power. It was exessive use of force and did nothing positive but continue adding to the terrible destruction and suffering happening in Syria.
If Mr. Trump cares so much about these poor suffering Syrians, why not lift the ban? Why add to their suffering? Why not speak out against Assad's behavior instead of respond to violence with more violence?
I don't think Spicer meant to be insulting, he just needs to educate himself before speaking out next time. I think as a country the US needs to look at its own actions and use its power and authority to aid those who suffer instead of attack them under the guise of heroism and justice which they deny to these Syrians the minute they approve of a ban.
