The armed rebels in Syria carried out several terrorist bombings this week. They detonated a bomb in the parking garage of the Palace of Justice in downtown Damascus. They bombed a police station. They bombed a TV station. All of these are non-military targets. If this was the Taliban conducting such bombings in Afghanistan, the U.S. media would be calling them “terrorist attacks”. But since these terrorists have U.S. backing, they are not “terrorists”, by definition. The only place the word even comes up in the the New York Times article reporting this information is in this paragraph:
Even Mr. Assad, who has often belittled the Syrian insurgency as an insignificant and unpopular movement led by what he calls foreign-backed terrorists, has tacitly acknowledged his opponents’ tenacity, telling the cabinet on Tuesday that the government was engaged in a war.
Assad merely “calls” them “foreign-backed terrorists”. That’s not really what they are, the Times would have you believe. Well, they are terrorists, by definition. And the fact that they are indeed foreign-backed is something the Times doesn’t seem to think is worth mentioning. There’s no mention of the fact that the CIA is coordinating the flow of money and arms to these terrorists, even though this fact is well known and has previously been reported by the Times. Now, why isn’t that worth even a mention in this article, even just a single sentence comment in passing?
Well, the answer to that question is obvious, and there’s only one answer. The reason is that reminding readers of that fact in this particular article could lead them to draw conclusions they aren’t supposed to, i.e., that the CIA is supporting armed groups carrying out terrorist bombings in Syria.