camouflage
gaslit at scale.
"Draw to a close? You mean you want everyone to lay down arms and accept the survival of the Assad regime": What do you want then, for the war to rage on even though Assads position at the head of the Syrian government shows no sign of being undermined by the military efforts that have been deployed against him, even though he has the support among Syrias multi-ethnic/multi-sectarian populace necessary to have survived as president thus far, even though the Syrian state has not collapsed, even though the principal that foreign powers should decide when the leadership of the government of a state should be changed regardless of what the people of that state have to say about it is imperialistic bollocks? This is the kind of creed jihadists and crusaders adhere to, as if it's some sort of holy war, a divine struggle against the forces of darkness, no matter how many must die the war must continue... "your sacrifice shall be revered through time memorial o people of Syria, verily thy shall be made martyrs upon the shining path of light that leads from this vale of tears to a seat at the right hand of god!" I find that kind of talk disgusting to be honest. Interesting how you make it sound shameful, "lay down their arms and accept the survival of the Assad regime", or as daesh types would say "lay down their arms and live in the lands of the kuffar, accepting the ungodly practices of homosexuality and women who imagine themselves the equal of men and those who follow the religion of the infidel???".
How about the use of reason, let's leave aside the "glorious path of light that will bear its heroes on blazing chariots to their place in heaven", how about the term "peace talks", in which compromise must be made on both sides, political reforms set in motion, processes for truth and reconciliation engaged in; sure it's ugly and difficult and bitter but that's what peace processes always require. Washingtons Hegemony and the petro-monarchs and neo-Ottomons have had their go, turns out that one good kick did not cause the whole rotten edifice to come tumbling down... get over it and face the opportunity to begin the process of peace making, forget about the "pure land of milk and honey that awaits the devout beyond the mountain of bones" and settle for the boring old valley of compromise and rebuilding and politics, where those Syrians who don't like Assad vote against him in the next internationally observed presidential elections and normal people get to live their lives and attend protest rallies and wave banners about the issues they don't like in a manner that doesn't invite foreign armies and mercs and fanatics.
And the trigger term "barrel bombs" that we see as a clear theme in the Western media, I wonder why terms like "explosives", "military aircraft", "kinetic force" haven't been bestowed with the same emotional symbolism, I suppose the media-masters know what they're doing, who am I to question their methods... seems arbitrary to me though but what do I know about the construction of loaded terms for the purpose of moulding public opinion... perhaps if Assad bought daisy-cutters from the Americans instead of being a cheap-skate it wouldn't work, but then if Assad was a client of the Americans he probably wouldn't be in this position in the first place. Bahrain and Saudi Fucking Arabia get by ok, nobody makes a big deal out of what the bombs are called that the Saudis drop on the people of Yemen after all. Is it bad if civilians are targeted in the war? Yes of course it is, but it's like a pile of bodies of people who have been shot leading to the term "gun" becoming a thing, or "Kalashnikov", "Assad the Kalashnikover", maybe I'm giving the relevant parties ideas actually, "Kalashnikov" has rhythm too plus it's a Russian name so extra points there.
I mean "biological weapons", "chemical weapons", "depleted uranium", "nukes" I could understand... the gifts that keep giving long after the war/regime-change campaign is over with poisoned environments and mutated gene-pools, but it is amazing how just the words for the thing itself- "barrel bomb" has become what it is, even overshadowing the accusation that it's used to target civilians, as in "bombs dropped on a crowd of civilians"... fair enough, blatantly evil... versus just by itself "barrel bomb"... as if in a vacuum just the term is evil enough, "barrel bombs dropped on a jihadi stronghold"- still as evil as "bombs dropped on a crowd of civilians" because it contains the term "barrel bomb". Language as a strategic asset in a way, not for the technical particulars of the weapon itself; what it consists of or anything so boring as radiological or toxic hazard, or how it works (I mean it blows people the fuck up just like any other bomb) or what it's targeted at in any particular case, but just the term itself... the spelling of it, "B A R R E L B O M B!" maybe with a hyphen is the proper way "BARREL-BOMB", perhaps you're not supposed to capitalize it all- "Barrel-Bomb"... maybe it's because of two "r"s and three "b"s... the way it looks on the page sort of thing. A media-studies person could probably write an interesting paper really. Anyway, it's fascinating is all I'm saying. Barrel-bomb, barrel bomb, barrel bomb!
Last edited:
