In the next paragraph, the NY Times writers of this article reporting from Beirut, Lebanon and Zagreb Croatia (in far away Europe) quote one "Abdoul Haytham, an activist" who tell of observing horribly bloody war scenes.
- reported to give the impression that the war be the fault of the defenders?
A sentence quotes the loyalist side, "Army units were staging raids on rebel hide-outs in and around Aleppo, reported SANA, the official Syrian news agency, inflicting heavy losses in men and materiel."
We can imagine the intention is for the reader to compare a sparse government report to a 'more accurate' description we read posted by
Times correspondents sitting in Lebanon and in the former Yugoslavia.
Next, check out how the Times writers admit that the contents of their article "could not be independently verified," but insert this admission in between the continuation of what "could not be independently verified." :
"Several videos posted by activists showed black clouds of smoke billowing from the town of Saqba, after warplanes purportedly bombed residential neighborhoods and factories there. The videos could not be independently verified. ""Look at this! Arabs and the rest of the world, look at this shelling, which has been taking place for 10 days straight,"" a man could be heard yelling out of camera range."
We read of 'good news' from "The Free Syrian Army" fighting for, what we have been indoctrinated to understand, are the values of the 'Free World' (no longer called more forthrightly the 'Colonial Powers).' "The Free Syrian Army, however, insisted that the government's ground forces had managed to advance only a few yards in the area."
And onward from yet another "activist," one "Abu Ghazi," giving the further 'good news' that "Regime forces are desperately trying to regain control of eastern Ghouta. Government soldiers have failed to retake the towns of Irbeen and Harasta despite subjecting them to continuous airstrikes."
We read on that according to the Times article's authors, writing from outside Syria, that "several Damascus residents complained that the number of jets and helicopters hovering overhead in the past few days had been unusually high." and from still another, for the Times reliable, source, "Local Coordination Committees, an opposition group that tracks the violence," we read that "two air raids targeted the downtown area of a town in which 15 residents died and many were wounded."
Mind you, the Times, in its devious way of presenting within, what the unwary reader expects is law-abiding, on the level, trustworthy press coverage, is able to level a war crime accusation against the Syrian air force. According to this Times article, the Syrian government is targeting an area of town and not an attacking army. Oh sure, it is a subtle difference, but add up six decades of Cold War and War-Against-Terror similar subtleties, and the result is the proud dispatching of many millions of human beings from Korea to Syria in their very own beloved countries under false pretenses, media managed.
The New York Times and its owned Washington Post continues to lead conglomerate US media in deceptions never possible by any outright State-controlled media.
Mercifully, for this peoples historian, constantly observing NY Times crimes against peace over an eighty-two year lifetime, towards the end this average Times news article, we are informed of a rebel atrocity.
"a bomb exploded near the Sayyida Zeinab shrine, a sacred pilgrimage shrine for Shiite Muslims that is in an eastern suburb of Damascus. Accounts of the attack by the Syrian Observatory and Ad Dounia, a private satellite channel close to the government, differed. An explosive device planted in a motorcycle detonated near a hotel by the shrine, killing eight people and wounding many more, the observatory said. But the television report said there were two bombs, one planted in a garbage can and a second that was dismantled before it exploded. SANA said six people were killed and 13 injured in the Sayyida Zeinab attack after an "armed terrorist group planted a bomb in a garbage bag.
But this one concession to reality does not cancel out the malicious effect of months of continuous partisan propaganda justifying US arming, funding and most assuredly, by past president, supervising as well, anti-Syrian forces for during a year long attempt to overthrow a friendly government. 
A veil of disinformation has descended so very completely on President Assad and the government of Syria. So much so that although in the case of Syria, Western business controlled media did allow us see massive pro-Assad government demonstrations, the much smaller anti-government gatherings easily sufficed merely through the Times and networks concentrating coverage on the anti-Assad clamoring.
In the case of Libya, the massive rally of many hundred thousands waving Green flags of support for Gadaffi, even while France and Britain with US help were bombing the hell out of their country was not shown on US commercial television or in the Times.[6a 6b 6c 6d ] The pro-Green multitude was so spectacular in size, Saif Gadaffi, the governments well spoken government leader appeared jubilant and elated, obviously thinking that NATO would have to back down in response. I remember seeing him on line looking victorious. Within two months the French, perennial protectors of Arabs and Africans, would have their warplanes corner his father, and see that he joined his grandchildren, murdered by British missiles, and his daughter, murdered during the US air strike ordered by President Reagan in 1988.
This archival research peoples historian was unable to find one single video or photo of more than local crowds of demonstrators screaming against Gadaffi (and then only against Gadaffi and not against any public distress) and not one video or photo of government troops, or tanks or planes firing on unarmed people, such as we had been seeing for months before on the streets in Egypt and Yemen.