- Karine Bechet-Golovko in Russiepolitics, translated by Tom Winter -
 |
| The coverage of Liberation "Faced with the IS, the regime fires first at Deir el-Zor" |
Yet the reactions in the French press are lukewarm. And the reason: it signals the victory of Bashar al-Assad.
In this case the palm of journalistic dishonor goes to Liberation, which gratifies us with a propaganda piece of surpassing loveliness. Let's consider it in some detail.
After a blockade of 4 years, the Syrian army, aided by Russia, has liberated the town of Deir Ezzor, the last great bastion of the Islamic State, whose end is in sight. But this victory alike signifies the victory of the legitimate President of Syria, the one so detested by the West. And this last article of Liberation on the subject passes all bounds.
No, really, what a disgrace. The "regime," i.e, the Syrian Regular National Army, not the "opposition" clusters, nor the American coalition -- baptized internationally for the needs of the cause -- fired first, "the Regime" did, and won.
Since when does a regular army, without the agreement of the American coalition, have the right to defend its territory? But where does it still exist? The regime -- an archaism most displaced.
That the Islamic state has at last been beaten, is obviously secondary. For, as they put it, the population no longer has to withstand the Russian bombardments (in Rakka, the coalition's democratic bombs kill only extremists with collateral damage - or rather collateral victims and sometimes also extremists - knowing that the collateral victims are abstract beings, not really beings anyway). A beautiful assessment colored by Liberation:
They have survived the oppression of the jihadists then the bombardments of the Russia and of the regime. It became an hell on earth there. It rained mortars day and night. They never were sure what the next target would be.
You have to understand this right: the jihadists, the Russians, and the regime represent the same thing: the evil that oppresses the people and prevents the arrival of the democratic bliss brought in by the American coalition.
Now that you have got that down, you will grasp the following. The United States had drawn a line, which was supposed to block the advance of the regular forces and to favor the so-called opposition groups, financed, armed, and maintained by the West. We have to remind ourselves that Syria is not part of the United States, in case someone has any doubt, and Syria has never asked the United States to intervene, nor has the United Nations given a mandate. Just a reminder.
It is precisely in the name of this famous line that the United States has already frontally attacked the Syrian army and killed several hundred of its soldiers, in the territory of Syria, with the fullest respect for the sovereignty of the country.
Let us pass on. And strangely enough, the United States, which held this line, did not give their pawns the means to go attack the Islamic state:
 |
|
A line called "Deconfliction had been drawn in August by the International Coalition directed by Washington to prevent rebels and the soldiers of the Syrian Army -- still adversaries in the rest of the country, crossing over and fighting. But all this was brushed aside starting in September when the Syrian army launched its assault on the town Al-Sukna at mount Bishri to the west of Deir el-Zor, without meeting any resistance on the part of the jihadists.
Backed by the intensives Russian airstrikes the troops of the Syrian regime advanced quite quickly right up to the suburbs of the town controlled by the IS since 2014. Tuesday they broke the seige imposed for two years by the IS on a government enclave located at the west of the town. Another, at the southern edge where the airport is, is still under siege.
WAIT
They demanded that we wait. Wait until the coalition deigns to sound the start of the liberation of the town...
|
And why? Let us be sure that our dear journalists, certainly the ones working for Liberation, will enlighten us very quickly on this point. Instead of a desperate population, as the French press suggests, a population that disses the "Regime," and is waiting for the arrival of the United States, it is a crowd in jubilation that welcomes the liberators and wants only one thing, to live like they used to live. Finally, the population does not seem so opposed to Assad ...
[Two videos, the first, as a link, the second, right here]
Celebration in Deir el-Zor
Celebration in Deir el-Zor
and
The end of the Islamic state does not mean the end of the conflict in Syria, but it does mean a change of its form, with the risks of a partisans war, which seems to be preparing in the west of the country with the reorganization of terrorist groups from the so-called moderate opposition (see our article here).
This conflict is also going to change politically, and that is what grieves our benefactors, as Assad emerges politically reinforced from his military victories on the ground and morally reinforced by his victory against the Islamic state.
It would be surprising, however, if our well-intentioned leaders so easily drop their weapons. We therefore expect new articles from their employees in the press, on the theme of "tyrant Assad" and his "regime."
Follow us on Facebook!
Follow us on Twitter!
Donate!
from Fort Russ http://ift.tt/2vQzqSQ
Why the despair of the French press about the liberation of Deir ez-zor? - Like This Article
0 Response to "Why the despair of the French press about the liberation of Deir ez-zor? - Like This Article"
Post a Comment