September 7, 2017 – Fort Russ News –
– 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”
On September 5, the Syrian regular Army, with Russian Army assistance, liberated the strategic town of Deir Ezzor from the Islamic State’s occupation that had been in place since 2014.
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.
Here is their headline [in screen capture above]
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:
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
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.”