Alan Johnston has written a persuasive article on the bombs that fall in Syria and the actors, state or non-state that play a part. Johnston provides little information about each actor, relying heavily on prior knowledge or assumptions. Received often fro the news which is somewhat dramatised to gain ratings, making his article relevant because they are able to form their own opinion. The first actor mentioned is Islamic state (IS). Highlighting the significance of non-state actors like IS in the Syrian conflict. By placing the blame of the bombings on IS casually, Johnston implies that they take killing people light-heartedly without much emotion. By stating “meanwhile, US…” this indicates how distant nation states are trying to have …show more content…
This throws off the readers because what once was described as a war that involved bombs in Syria has now become so complex Syria and in some ways the international community are struggling to find a solution. The next section discusses the Homs mass killings, again by IS. The effect of this is to link all humanitarian issues about the death and displacement of Syrians to IS. He also chooses to report on Homs because it is the place with the strongest support for Assad and his regime. Enforcing that IS are strategically killing people and the opposing Shia Muslim religion. Johnston uses the non-state actor The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitoring group for statistics only. He uses an international group to suggest how Syria can’t even keep track of those killed because they’re too focused on striving for control and how countries’ organisation won’t stop the war of the deaths. The next section is called “my duty” and it’s about Assad and how he believes he will save Syria. Alan using this for a contrast to the start of the article which describes what is actually happening. Assad is, therefore, not saving Syria but killing its