"The conflicting accounts of who carried out the assault on the television station". What conflicting accounts? The station is loyal to the regime: logic prohibits the notion of conflicting accounts. And when the regime commits a massacre, as it has over the months (and the years prior during Hafidh's rule), the New York Times never allows for the notion of "conflicting account" and points fingers in one direction. Yet, when the massacre is committed by gangs of the UnFree Syrian Army, the New York Times covers up the massacre by introducing the notion of "conflicting accounts" to distance the killers from their crimes. I have never seen the New York Times working hard to cover up crimes and massacres since it covered the latest Israeli war crime and massacre. This tells me that the UnFree Syrian Army gangs are as valuable to Western Zionists as the Israeli terrorist army. Any links there? Of course, there are.