In The New York Times on September 20, Eric Schmitt, Michael R.

Gordon,
and Somini Sengupta report U.S Officials say Russia probably attacked U.N.
Humanitarian Convoy. Schmitt, et al point out, according to American
intelligence, that Russia was responsible for a deadly bombing on a U.N.
humanitarian convoy in Syria. Though a cease-fire agreement was called
between Russian and US governments in Syria, a convoy of 18 trucks,
carrying food, medicine and clothing for about 78,00 people, was destroyed,
killing 20 civilians, due to the Russian airstrike. Thus, leading to a weakened
agreement between Russian and United States aimed at halting the war in
Syria.

The main idea of the article revolves around US and Russian involvement in
strife-ridden Syria, and how an event, the Russian bombing, catalyzes
tension between the two countries. The writers, in the article, report
statements made by key people. UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon called
the attack on the convoy sickening, savage and apparently deliberate.
American officials, in a private statement, said that their intelligence
information suggested that it was a Russian aircraft that carried out the
bombing. However, both Syria and Russia denied responsibility of the
bombing. The writers also include similar historical incidents and events in
the article. One of the events include, an errant American airstrike that was
supposed to neutralize ISIS, but instead killed 60 people, who were identified
as Syrian soldiers.
The writers also report, in detail, the extent of damage caused by this
Russian bombing on the convoy. United Nations officials in Geneva said that
about 12 humanitarian workers were killed in bombing. About 20 civilians
were killed, according to The International Committee of the Red Cross.
Adding to the death toll was also property damage. United Nations officials
said 18 trucks- clearly marked and carrying wheat flour, nine tons of
medicine and clothing for about 78,000 people- were destroyed. A Red Cross
spokesperson also said that a hospital had been destroyed.

The writers incorporate various rhetorical appeals such as Ethos, Logos and
Pathos to persuade their audience. The writers use ethos when they appeal
to a sense of authority. In this article, the writers receive expert opinions
from professionals in the field. For example, the article includes Col. John J.
Thomass insights on the whole Russian bombing issue. This backs the
credibility of the article. The writers also provide data and statistics in the
article which appeals to Logos. This ensures that the article is backed by
facts, and the audience is given more insight regarding the issue. The writers
also use pathos, in the form of testimonies to persuade their audience.
Testimonies given by different subjects often lead to exposure to more
perspectives.
The main subjects of the article are the US government, Russian government
and the people currently residing in Syria. The active subjects are the US and
Russian governments, whereas the residents of Syria are passive subjects.
The writers point out that the actions of the active subjects have immense
consequences on the passive subjects. In the article, they also deeply
illustrate the fact that the ongoing tensions between USA and Russia is
interfering with the Syrian population, though both the countries indulge in
humanitarian work. The writers make us feel sympathetic towards the Syrian
population, citing loss of life and damage to property.

The source of the article is The New York Times, which is a credible
newspaper. Its readership is about 1.4 million people; however, the online
newspaper has a wider reach to the audience. As it is a US-based firm, most
of its readership is in the US, but it also reaches the world wide through its
website. Anyone who is interested in Politics and Current Affairs most likely
will read this article. I feel that the audience can range from any age
category, as it is written in plain English. The audience would most likely
respond with both anger and sympathy after reading this article. The
audience would be angry because of the negligence of the governments to
control the issue, and sympathetic to the ones who are suffering.