Only once was Assad forthright -- asserting that he would not say whether or not he had poison gas stockpiles. The Israelis don't admit that they have nuclear weapons; why should he have to acknowledge possessing poison gas? In my terms, he was claiming the right to keep that secret.
Assad was a master of evasion, dodging, weaving, demanding absolute certainty; he treated the interview as a game of chess, making the necessary moves to avoid having to admit the evidence he knows (I believe) is there.
Only once did I see Assad slip. About the eighth minute of the interview when Assad claimed that his soldiers were attacked with chemical weapons, a very fast micro expression of enjoyment leaked, what I call duping delight. He was having fun forcing Rose to disprove that possibility. Ten minutes later when they discussed the "red line," a micro expression of contempt slipped out. Assad was superior to Rose and Obama. A better game player.
In the last minutes of the interview Assad's demeanor changed completely. He told, what I think, he believes is an accurate description of the situation in Syria, and his role as the rescuer of his country. Grant him his interpretation of events in Syria and it will be nearly impossible to persuade him to ever end the killing."
quinta-feira, 12 de setembro de 2013
If you're reading this, you're smart enough
blog, e tal como ela gostaria de realçar a analise de Paul Ekman da entrevista de Assad a um jornalista americano.
à(s) setembro 12, 2013