So the New York Times actually reported this: "In Paris, a French doctor who just returned from a two-week medical
mission at a rebel-controlled hospital in Aleppo said he was surprised
by the number of militants from outside Syria who had joined the fight
with the goal of establishing an Islamist government. The doctor, Jacques Bérès, 71, a surgeon who is known for missions to war zones and who helped found the humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders,
said in an interview with Reuters that he had treated about 40 patients
a day and that 60 percent were rebel fighters, half of whom were from
outside Syria. “It’s really something strange to see,” he said, according to Reuters.
“They are directly saying that they aren’t interested in Bashar
al-Assad’s fall, but are thinking about how to take power afterward and
set up an Islamic state with Shariah law to become part of the world emirate.” “Some of them were French and were completely fanatical about the future,” he added, according to Reuters. Dr. Bérès called the high proportion of foreign Islamist fighters in
Aleppo a sharp contrast to his impressions on trips this spring to
makeshift clinics in the cities of Idlib and Homs."
Yet, to discredit this report, it added this: "Activists and rebel fighters who have been interviewed over the Internet
consistently describe far lower numbers of foreign fighters and
Islamist militants, and the few reported interviews with Islamists have
provided little agreement on what kind of government they envision—
whether along the lines of Turkey, Saudi Arabia or Iran, for example." First, notice the rebuttal that relies on those interviewed "over the Internet". How reliable is that. Secondly, notice that rare reluctance of NYT to generalize about Jihadi fighters: this is akin to the New York Times stating during the war in Afghanistan that the US should not lump all Jihadis together and that some Jihadis want to emulate the government of Iran (bad), while others want to emulate the government in Saudi Arabia (good).
