Yahoo News is republishing an article from The Telegraph reporting that Bashir al Assad of Syria is warning the USA to get its troops out of Syria. According to Assad, the failure to remove US troops will result in Assad having his forces drive the Americans from the country.
That's a rather funny threat. After all, Assad barely held on through the civil war and would have been defeated and, likely, executed but for the support of Iran, Hezbollah and Russia. His forces are extremely weak, exhausted after years of tough combat. Further, Assad remains the head of a government that is supported by less than 30% of Syria's people, and those same people are unlikely to accept a new battle against US forces.
The Telegraph article, however, does more than just report Assad's threat. It gives the opinion that this is a serious threat. As the article puts it, "Assad, who is backed by Russia and Iran, appears militarily unassailable.."
Think about that. The Telegraph stacks up the beleaguered Syrian forces against the US military and finds that the Syrian military is "unassailable". It's hard to write that without laughing. Remember, in the last three months, the Israelis have taken out position after position inside Syria with missiles and jets at the cost of one plane that was shot down. The Syrians have been unable to stop any of these air strikes. About two months ago, Syrian, Iranian and Russian irregular forces started moving on a camp where American and Kurdish forces were located. The advancing troops were warned to pull back, but they didn't. As a result, the US opened up on the attacking troops. The entire column of attackers was destroyed; there were about 600 killed or wounded among the Syrian, Iranian and Russian forces. Oh, and there were no American or Kurdish casualties. That's some militarily unassailable force.
One has to wonder what the point of calling the Syrian misfit army "unassailable" could be. Is The Telegraph reporter just lobbying for the removal of American forces? Is there some other possible reason?
It's really annoying to see such blatant #FakeNews pushed in the media.
That's a rather funny threat. After all, Assad barely held on through the civil war and would have been defeated and, likely, executed but for the support of Iran, Hezbollah and Russia. His forces are extremely weak, exhausted after years of tough combat. Further, Assad remains the head of a government that is supported by less than 30% of Syria's people, and those same people are unlikely to accept a new battle against US forces.
The Telegraph article, however, does more than just report Assad's threat. It gives the opinion that this is a serious threat. As the article puts it, "Assad, who is backed by Russia and Iran, appears militarily unassailable.."
Think about that. The Telegraph stacks up the beleaguered Syrian forces against the US military and finds that the Syrian military is "unassailable". It's hard to write that without laughing. Remember, in the last three months, the Israelis have taken out position after position inside Syria with missiles and jets at the cost of one plane that was shot down. The Syrians have been unable to stop any of these air strikes. About two months ago, Syrian, Iranian and Russian irregular forces started moving on a camp where American and Kurdish forces were located. The advancing troops were warned to pull back, but they didn't. As a result, the US opened up on the attacking troops. The entire column of attackers was destroyed; there were about 600 killed or wounded among the Syrian, Iranian and Russian forces. Oh, and there were no American or Kurdish casualties. That's some militarily unassailable force.
One has to wonder what the point of calling the Syrian misfit army "unassailable" could be. Is The Telegraph reporter just lobbying for the removal of American forces? Is there some other possible reason?
It's really annoying to see such blatant #FakeNews pushed in the media.
No comments:
Post a Comment