Is there any crime by the Syrian armed groups that Anne Barnard does not absolve them from?

The 80-year old father of Syrian official, Faysal Mikdad, is kidnapped by armed groups and no one in the world but Ms. Barnard believes that he was NOT abducted by goons of the glorious "revolution".  She writes:  "A spokesman for the rebel Free Syrian Army described the abduction as “unconvincing and strange,” given that the father did not share his son’s views...".  Let me guess: the 80-year old father of Mikdad switch to the side of the "revolution" quietly and silently only hours before his abduction, right?  Is this not the typical method of the armed groups to justify their abductions and murder time after time?  She then adds:  "The Mekdad clan numbers in the thousands in Dara’a, where the uprising began, and includes government supporters and opponents."  And it just happens that the 80-year old father of Mr. Mikdad decided to go against his son and to support the "revolution" and for that the regime decided that he should be kidnapped because hours earlier he switched sides?  How dumb do you think your reader are, Ms. Barnard?