The Economist's account of sectarianism in Syria

"Until then, Syrian Sunnis had rarely defined themselves in sectarian terms."  This is one of the dumbest claims in a collection of dumb observation in the special section about Arab uprisings in the Economist.  You mean to tell me that the Ikhwan, and the Jihadis, and the Salafis in Syria were all secular until Bashshar made them sectarian?  This is like when Golda Meir observed that Palestinians were making her a killer of children, that she did not want to do it.  The Economist needs to educate itself about the history of Ikhwan sectarian crimes in Syria which go back to the 1970s.  Also, I like when in Western media they all repeat the silly claim by Syrian armed groups that it was Bashshar who made the conflict sectarian.  When pressed, they never provide examples.  In fact, the New York Times had to print a correction when Anne Barnard claimed repeatedly (falsely) that Bashshar referred to his enemies as Sunnis.  Look how the Economist put it:  "Mr Assad’s regime worked hard not just to crush the revolt but to turn it into a sectarian battle."  But how? How, Mr. Watson?