Sec. of State Hil speaks.
Secretary Clinton (Apr. 1):
"We will be providing greater humanitarian relief to people in need, and we will support the opposition as it works toward an inclusive democratic transition that preserves the integrity and institutions of the Syrian state."
Regarding the part after the word "that," I don't think it's very smart thing.
Our secretary of state talks about the Syrian "state." There are certain persons who are standing around Assad. I have torn the picture out, from the NYT. They are kind of incoherent; so, they try pictures. Good for them. That's creativity. I like creativity. The NYT of course is also the newspaper we were talking about yesterday, the previous post. Here he was pictured making a "rare public appearance." There's another picture, of the family, on Wikipedi. Here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F-assad.jpg .... I do not see how the Clinton statement makes sense. How you would get rid of Assad only to make a new state out of those who carry out his orders for him and kill. I know it makes good State Dept. double-speak. That is what it is. I do not think there is any real idea to it. To my thinking the State is the people in that picture who are protecting Assad standing around the stage in plain clothes, not dressed as are the others, in colorful flag wraps. "The" Syrian State? This is a complete phony bullshit "state" run by smiling(an alternative word could be: grim-)-faced killers. It doesn't seem to make sense what Hil said. I know she has a hard row to hoe but she shouldn't just say anything, because this is double-speak and it just sounds good. It doesn't make a hoot of sense. The idea, formally stated, would be that there are "institutions" in Syria... It sounds reasonable, but I would suggest the problem is their motivation. They are trying to come up with something to say, to look smart. It just doesn't make sense on the deeper, more intuitive level. "Institutions" are staffed by humans ---- people. What is an institution/state without the persons in it? And these persons are murderer-scum.
The worse he is, the worse his "institutions" are.
This is easy enough to get at, or dig into via internet. I find out a little more, not on institutions (which are invisible, I suspect), but on male and female persons. "She [sister of al-Assad] is married to Assef Shawqat, the deputy chief of staff of the Syrian Armed Forces and former head of the Syrian Military Intelligence." That would be "Bushra," the al-Assad Dad's (one generation older) daughter. "At university Bushra befriended Bouthaina Shaaban who is now member of the Syrian Cabinet." So there is an example of what is really involved, if we speak of a Syrian "institution," and who runs it. I get the idea of how Syria found its heads of its institutions. What I think is that in Syria, every institution has a bastard at its head. And this is what we have to face if we want to intervene. And we should face it.
Something else now. Here is another example of the NYT form of speech, to add to what was in Part 1:
the opposition to Assad, they say, is attempting to "bolster" opposition through "...means that seemed to stretch the definition of humanitarian assistance and blur the line between so-called lethal and nonlethal support." So, this is what is important to them, and this is what we were talking about before.
Part of the language is the word Seemed. "Seemed" refers to what? -or, who? To nobody. If it "seemed" a certain way then the word "seem" leaves open the possibility that this is just appearance thereby opening up the possibility of another way that would be more actual, more real.